aBKflfffffm 




II! i 




Book : K (r a". 

Copyright N?. 



cderigsit deposit 



STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS 
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 

LONDON ■ BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 

TORONTO 



STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 



BY 
PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D. 

CHAIR OF NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, SOUTHERN 
BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, LOUISVILLE, KY. 



"THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL OF 
JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD " 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1919 

All rights reserved 



b 






Copyright, igi8, by 
The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, The Sunday School 
Times Company, The University of Chicago, F. M. Barton, 
George H. Doran Company, Funk and Wagnalls Company. 



Copyright, igio 

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Set up and electrotyped. Published April, igig 



APR 23 1919 ^ , Q 



V," 



2fa 

THE MEMORY OF 

CHARLOTTE 

MY RADIANT DAUGHTER 



PREFACE 

The chapters of this book first appeared as articles in 
various publications. Credit is given in each instance and 
thanks are hereby returned to the several publishers for 
permission to republish them in book form. The chapters 
have all been carefully revised and, in some instances, 
changed to suit the present purpose. They cover many 
aspects of the Gospel without attempting full and formal 
exposition. It is hoped that by this method a wider circle 
of readers may be reached than would be willing to follow 
detailed comment. This Gospel has the charm of two per- 
sonalities who contributed to its contents, Peter and John 
Mark. Both were vivacious and versatile and have pre- 
served the portrait of Jesus with the freshness of the morn- 
ing. Modern criticism of the Gospels finds in Mark's book 
the foundation (along with the Logia of Jesus) of the other 
three. It is impossible to overestimate the critical and 
historical worth of the Second Gospel which is really the 
First in order of time. Professor J. Rendel Harris in a recent 
article comments on the eternal " Youth of Jesus" as one 
of the charms that the Master has for mystics. In this 
Gospel Jesus fascinates us with the vigor of young manhood 
and the glory of the Godhead. The present volume turns 
the picture round so that it may be seen from this angle 
and from that. But the eye of Jesus holds us enthralled 
all the while with his pity and his power. 

A. T. Robertson 

LODISVILLE, KY. 



VU 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

I. The Making of John Mark i 

II. The Date of Mark's Gospel 9 

III. Mark's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem 19 

IV. Peter's Influence on Mark's Gospel 35 

V. The Miraculous Element in Mark's Gospel 47 

VI. The Christ of Mark's Gospel 62 

VII. Jesus in Mark's Gospel the Exemplar for Preach- 
ers 79 

VIII. The Parables of Jesus in Mark's Gospel 97 

IX. The Teaching of Jesus in Mark's Gospel 108 

X. Aramaic and Latin Terms in Mark's Gospel 122 

XI. The Disputed Close of Mark's Gospel 128 



STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 



STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

CHAPTER I 

THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 1 
"Taking with them John whose surname was Mark." Acts 12:25. 

John Mark, the author of the Second Gospel, has absolutely 
nothing to say about himself in his Gospel, unless there is a 
veiled reference in 14:51/., where we have the elusive figure 
of "a certain young man" who had followed Jesus to Geth- 
semane and who fled, leaving his loose nightrobe, when the 
officers arrested the Master. This may be John Mark, the 
son of Mary, in whose house the disciples met at a later time 
(Acts 12:12). If so, it was at his mother's house that Jesus 
partook of the last Passover meal. But Papias says that 
Mark was not a personal follower of Jesus. 

1. Glimpses of Mark. — However, we do get a good many 
glimpses of John Mark in the Acts and in Paul's Epistles. 
By means of these we can form some idea of the young man 
who performed such a great work in the writing of the Gospel 
that lies at the basis of both Matthew and Luke, according 
to the almost unanimous opinion of modern scholars. " There 
is no critical position more generally recognized than that 
St. Mark forms the groundwork of St. Matthew and St. 
Luke." 2 For every reason, therefore, modern Christians are 
interested in Mark. It is not the purpose of this chapter 
to discuss the sources of Mark's information, though Papias 

1 The Sunday School Times, May 4, 19 18. 

2 Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 191 7, p. 12. 



2 STUDIES IN MARK S GOSPEL 

is almost certainly correct in his statement, on the authority 
of the Elder (the Presbyter John, probably the same as the 
Apostle John), that Mark was the disciple and interpreter of 
Simon Peter and wrote down Peter's discourses about our 
Lord. Luke tells us (1:1-4) that he made use of both oral 
and written sources (first-hand sources, eye-witnesses — 
avroiTTai — and accurate). There is no reason to think that 
Mark confined himself to what Peter said, when he had 
access to other disciples also w T ho flocked to his mother's 
house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). But in this chapter we are 
the rather concerned with Mark himself and some of the 
things that went into the making of this useful servant of 
Christ. 

2. Not a Man of the Highest Gifts. — There are undoubted 
advantages in being a man of supreme genius like Paul or 
John the Evangelist. But these men are few and the great 
majority must take a lower place. All the evidence goes to 

. show that Mark was a young man of good, but not unusual, 
native gifts. Most of the work of the world is done by men of 
just this type. The love of work is after all a form of genius, 
better than mere brilliance of intellect. At first Mark did 
not seem to have this application to hard tasks. He did not 
quickly find himself and he seemed fickle. 

3. On Making Mistakes. — He was the kind of man to be 
the victim of moods and of whims, and so to make mistakes. 
Now mistakes are not a desirable asset in any man's char- 
acter, though no one of us is wholly free from them. It is 
human to err and we stumble in spite of all that we can do. 
Least of all is the habit of making mistakes to be cultivated. 
Some mistakes are more or less venial, but others are fatal. 
At Shepherds ville, Ky., December, 191 7, the conductor of a 
local train that was taking the siding failed to send back the 
flagman, though his train was behind time. The engineer 
on the Louisville and Nashville "Cannonball" for New 
Orleans failed to stop as the signal called for him to do and 
took the chance of going by. He ran his train into the local 



THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 3 

and killed forty-eight helpless men, women, and children in 
a minute of time. Some mistakes can be overcome. Some 
of us learn by our mistakes and make them stepping-stones 
to God. John. Mark had a great experience that affected his 
whole career. 

4. Mark's Good Start. — His youthful environment was 
good, for at his mother's home he met constantly the leading 
spirits of early Christianity. Here were to be seen frequently 
the twelve apostles, James the brother of Jesus, Barnabas 
the cousin of Mark, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the other 
women, Philip the deacon-evangelist, and many others whose 
names we do not know. It is a great education for young 
people to live in a home where the great and good of earth 
meet. Mark's mother was clearly a woman of parts, and 
left her impress upon her boy, who was to bring her undying 
fame. At first Mark was the son of Mary, but by and by 
Mary was known as the mother of John Mark. This was as 
she would have wished it to be, as any mother wishes it to be 
who finds her jewels in her children. 

Mark was fortunate also in the love and friendship of 
Barnabas, who was always on the lookout for young men 
whom he could help. Paul was one of those whom Barnabas 
befriended at Jerusalem when all the disciples looked askance 
at this new sheep in the flock which had so lately ravened as 
a wolf. They fancied that they could still see the wolf's 
ears beneath the sheep's clothing (Acts 9:26/.). So Barnabas 
took along John Mark to Antioch when he and Saul returned 
thither from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25). Mark may not have 
taken the enterprise very seriously. At any rate the Holy 
Spirit called upon Barnabas and Saul to go upon the first 
great campaign to win the Gentiles to Christ (Acts 13:1-3). 
The Greek church at Antioch rose to the occasion and gave 
their blessing to the movement. 

It was for this hour that Saul had longed and looked, 
since Christ set him apart to go "far hence to the Gentiles," 
though he had by no means been idle during the intervening 



4 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

years. But even so the company went out with Barnabas 
still the leader, as he had brought Saul from Tarsus to An- 
tioch (Acts 11:25). But John Mark seems to have been 
taken along in some sort of subordinate position that is not 
made clear by the reference in Acts 13 15 : " And they had also 
John as their attendant" {virrfpir-qv) . The word means 
"under-rower" on a ship, down below the ranks of upper- 
rowers. It was sometimes employed for the synagogue min- 
ister or attendant, as in Luke 4:20. It is not necessary tc 
know precisely what Mark was expected to do. He may 
have been advance agent to arrange about the hotels, meet- 
ing places, means of travel, etc. He may have done the 
baptizing and helped talk to the inquirers (the catechumens). 
Clearly his work was subordinate to that of Barnabas and 
Saul. But many another young man has had his opportunity 
by beginning in a humble way. Men prove themselves 
worthy of bigger things by doing well the smaller task in hand. 
5. Mark's Failure in a Crisis. — It seems clear that Mark 
had no idea of the real greatness of Paul at this juncture. 
To his thinking, Barnabas was the greater man, and he may 
have resented the sudden leadership of Paul at Paphos. It 
was now "Paul and his company" (Acts 13:13) that set 
sail from Paphos and that came to Perga in Pamphylia. It 
was at Perga that matters came to a crisis with Mark. He 
may have been a bit irritated at his subordinate place, and 
all the more now that Paul had displaced Barnabas as the 
head of the party. It seems clear that something happened 
at Perga that Luke has not recorded. Ramsay thinks that 
Paul had an attack of malaria at this coast town. Mark 
may also have been the victim of the mosquito. Depression 
seized Mark, who may not have cared to face the perils of 
rivers and perils of robbers that lay ahead of the party on 
the high tablelands of Pisidia and Lycaonia (the southern 
part of the province of Galatia). Paul seemed bent on 
pushing on in this campaign, and Barnabas stood by him. 
Mark had apparently had no specific call from the Holy 



THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 



Spirit for this enterprise, and so felt less responsibility in 
the matter, though he had joined hands with the company. 

At any rate, at Perga, "John departed from them and 
returned to Jerusalem" (Acts 13:13). In this incidental 
way Luke notes the defection of Mark. He did not go to 
Antioch, where it would be embarrassing to make explana- 
tions, but to his home in Jerusalem. Probably Mark felt 
that the reasons for his course were excellent and fully jus- 
tified his conduct. It is not difficult to find reasons in plenty 
for not doing a hard and disagreeable task. Paul and Bar- 
nabas faced the dangers ahead and pressed on, and, "passing 
through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia" (Acts 13 114), 
and made this journey one of the epochal events in history, 
for it led to the evangelization of the Graeco-Roman world 
and the liberation of Christianity, after a struggle, from the 
fetters that the Judaizers tried to impose upon it (Acts 11: 
1-18; 15:1-35). One of the tests of a man's fiber is to know 
when a crisis has come. Mark took his defection rather 
lightly, but Paul took it much to heart. 

6. Paul's Indignation at Mark's Conduct. — The explosion 
came about in a rather incidental way after the return of 
Paul and Barnabas and after their victory over the Judaizers 
at the Jerusalem conference. The Judaizers were alarmed 
at the rapid spread of Christianity among the Gentiles as 
a result of this tour and challenged the validity of the work 
of Paul and Barnabas, demanding that these Gentile Chris- 
tians become Jews (Acts 15:1/.). Thus one of the greatest 
issues in the history of Christianity was sprung. To yield 
was to make Christianity a sect of current Pharisaic Judaism. 
It was the real spiritual Israel, and Paul and Barnabas were 
not going to allow such a calamity to befall the Gentile 
churches as these Pharisaic Christians from Jerusalem 
planned. Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:1-10) stood by 
Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4-29) so that Paul and Barnabas 
returned to Antioch in triumph (Acts 15:30-35). Nothing 
is said of Mark, but it is quite possible that he at this juncture 



6 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

was indifferent to Paul's contention. Indeed, later Peter 
came to Antioch and followed Paul and Barnabas in prac- 
ticing social equality with the Greek Christians, and then 
drew back (Gal. 2:11/.), because some Judaizers from Jeru- 
salem threatened more trouble to Peter (cf. Acts 11:1-18), 
claiming that James was against the present attitude of 
Peter on this phase of the question. Peter's defection in- 
duced "even Barnabas" to desert Paul in this " dissimula- 
tion" (hypocrisy). 

It is possible that Mark's coolness towards Paul may have 
caused Barnabas to weaken for the moment and to leave 
Paul in the lurch. At any rate Paul rebuked Peter and 
Barnabas and won them back to his side. The time came 
when Paul proposed to Barnabas that they "return now and 
visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the 
word of the Lord, and see how they fare" (Acts 15:36). 
Barnabas was more than willing, but suggested that they 
take along with them John Mark. Instantly the long 
smoldering indignation of Paul burst forth. "But Paul 
thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from 
them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the 
work ? ' (Acts 1 5 :3 8) . Paul's word for c ' withdrew ' ' (awoa-TavTa) 
is literally "apostatized." And, then, he did not stick to 
the work. He flickered in a crisis. Paul had no intention 
of taking Mark back again over the same ground. The 
mosquitoes were still at Perga. Luke uses the imperfect 
tense (jjitov) of Paul's stubborn resistance to the plan of 
Barnabas. We are not told more of the conversation, but 
Luke adds that "there arose a sharp contention" (7rapo£vcr- 
fios); the word is our "paroxysm". Probably sharp things 
were said, so sharp that "they parted asunder one from the 
other." Paul cared too much for the work to risk a young 
man who would not stand true when the pinch came. He 
wished no deserters and no "slackers" with him. 

7. Mark's Second Chance with Barnabas. — Barnabas prac- 
ticed the Gospel of the second chance, and was determined 



THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 7 

that his cousin, John Mark, should have another opportunity 
to show what he could do. One is bound to admit that 
sympathy goes with Barnabas in this position, however 
much judgment may be with Paul. Barnabas took Mark 
with him to Cyprus, his old home and possibly the original 
home of Mark's family. Paul went his way with Silas back 
to the scene of the first tour in Lycaonia and Pisidia. Paul 
and Barnabas agreed to disagree. Luke follows the fortunes 
of Paul, so that we know nothing more of Barnabas and 
Mark. We may be sure that Barnabas would demand that 
Mark be true this time. It is possible that this sharp rebuff 
by Paul did much to awaken Mark to a proper realization of 
his responsibility. Once more we may note how fortunate 
Mark was in having a friend like Barnabas, with the patience 
and the love to help him through his time of probation. 
Some of the early writers say that Mark went on to Egypt 
finally and did a great work there, but of this we know 
nothing definite. We do know how wise and gentle was 
Barnabas, the son of consolation. 

8. Making Good with Simon Peter. — Peter himself bears 
witness to this fact in his first Epistle (i Pet. 5:13) when he 
speaks of "Mark my son" as with him "in Babylon" (prob- 
ably Rome). The early writers testify that Mark was with 
Peter in Rome, that he was Peter's interpreter or dragoman, 
translating his Aramaic discourses into the current Greek. 
It is the common tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel with 
the discourses of Peter as the main source. Some say that 
he wrote at Peter's dictation, others with his approval, 
others after his death. But the testimony is unanimous, 
and internal evidence confirms it, that Mark faithfully pre- 
served the substance of Peter's discourses about the Lord 
Jesus. Thus under Peter's tutelage he rendered a service 
of supreme worth for all the ages. He kept the life-like 
touches of Peter's speeches and lets us see Jesus with Peter's 
keen eyes. 

9. A Comfort to Paul, — It is good to know that Paul rec- 



8 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

ognized that Mark had made good and could now be de- 
pended on to do his work. It is not incredible that Paul 
may have read Mark's Gospel while in Rome during his 
first imprisonment. We know that Mark was here with 
Paul part of the time and that Paul was pleased with him. 
"Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, 
the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye have received 
commandments; if he come unto you, receive him)" (Col. 
4:10). In the loneliness of the last imprisonment in Rome 
Paul begs Timothy, who is now in Asia, to come and "take 
Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for 
ministering" (2 Tim. 4:11). Paul revised his judgment 
about Mark after he had noticed the change in his conduct. 
Probably Paul refers here to his experience with Mark in 
Rome (Col. 4:10). Paul was only too glad to give praise 
instead of blame. 

Mark is a comfort to many a young man who has made 
a serious blunder in life. Take heart and wake up to the 
stern realities of duty. The war times brought us all up 
with a jerk. The main things of life called for our energy, and 
we learned to hold ourselves to the main tasks. Most of us 
make slips. Most of us are not greatly gifted. But all of us 
can make our lives count for God by sticking steadily to the 
w r ork to which we are called and to which we have put our 
hands. It is doubtless true that Mark's mistake at Perga 
and the sharp contention at Antioch served to rouse him to 
genuine exertion. Strenuous application took the place of 
indifference, and the result was victory. 



CHAPTER II 

THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 1 

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative con- 
cerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us." Luke 1:1. 

i. Effect of the Two-Document Hypothesis, — Already the 
interest of the world of New Testament scholarship has 
been centered upon the Second Gospel as one of the Two 
Documents (Q and Mark) used by Matthew and Luke for 
the major part of their Gospels. Critics are not quite un- 
animous on this solution of the Synoptic Problem, for Zahn 
still insists that the Aramaic Matthew precedes Mark 2 as 
his interpretation of what Irenaeus and Clement of Alex- 
andria say. But the majority of modern scholars agree 
with Sanday, who says pointedly: "We assume what is 
commonly known as the ' Two-Document Hypothesis.'" 3 
In either case, whether one follows Sanday (as I do) on this 
point or Zahn, the date of Mark is still a matter of debate 
and of importance. 

The general effect of the "Two-Document Hypothesis" 
has been to push Mark back to a comparatively early date. 
If we admit the use of Mark by Luke, this seems necessary. 
Even Bartlet admits this, though he does not concur with 
the view that Q was so used: "That our Mark was used in 
the two other Synoptic Gospels I firmly believe, and so far 
agree with the current documentary hypothesis. On the 
other hand, I cannot see that the common use of a second 

1 The Expositor (London), April, 19 18. 

2 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., 1909, vol. ii, pp. 394 ff. 
s Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 191 1, p. 2. 

9 



IO STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

document, whether by Matthew and Luke alone, or by 
Mark also, is probable." 1 

2. The Date of Luke's Gospel. — The argument is therefore 
part of a chain, the links of which hang together. Harnack 
admits that the reasonable explanation for the close of Acts 
is that events had at that time proceeded no further. "We 
are accordingly left with the result: that the concluding 
verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction 
with the absence of any reference in the book to the result 
of the trial of St. Paul and to his martyrdom, make it in 
the highest degree probable that the work was written at a 
time when St. Paul's trial in Rome had not yet come to an 
end." 2 After a survey of the argument of Wellhausen that 
the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place before Luke 
21:20-24 was written, Harnack says: " Hence it is proved 
that it is altogether wrong to say that the eschatological 
passages force us to the conclusion that the Third Gospel 
was written after the year 70 a. d." Since Luke wrote his 
Gospel before the Acts, as he himself says (Acts 1:1), the 
first question is the date of Paul's release from his first Ro- 
man imprisonment. It is not certain that Nero passed on 
the case or that it came to trial. But, whether Paul was 
dismissed without trial or set free after trial, it could not 
be later than a. d. 63. Ramsay places it " towards the end 
of a. d. 61." 3 In any case we may allow some three years 
(two in Rome and the year of the voyage) for the completion 
of the Gospel of Luke in Caesarea where Paul (with Luke) 
spent two years (Acts 24:27). This was about 56-58 A. d. 
It is not necessary to date the Gospel of Luke so long before 
and to place its composition in Caesarea, though this is the 
natural thing to do, for, while in Palestine, Luke had the 
time and the opportunity to procure the data used by him 
(Luke 1:1-4). Luke may have completed his Gospel in 

1 The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel , p. 315 in Oxford Studies. 

2 Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, transl., 1911, p. 99. 

3 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 357. 



THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL II 

Rome. This is the conclusion of Harnack: "It now seems 
to be established beyond question that both books of this 
great historical writer were written while St. Paul was still 
alive." x 

It is clear that if this line of argument is correct, Mark's 
Gospel must come not later than 60 a. d. and probably 
earlier. Wellhausen 2 admits that it is not later than the 
sixth decade a. d. Harnack 3 concurs. It is here assumed, 
of course, that Luke wrote both Gospel and Acts. Harnack 4 
agrees with the judgment of Zahn: "Hobart 5 has proved 
for every one who can at all appreciate proof that the author 
of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific 
language of Greek medicine — in short, a Greek physician." 6 

3. The Date of Q. — If we seek the earliest probable date 
and not the latest, we are at once confronted with Q (the 
other main source of Matthew and Luke), which was appar- 
ently earlier than Mark. Indeed, there are not wanting those 
who find in Mark traces of the use of Q. The whole question 
of the limits of Q is involved, but it cannot be discussed here. 
It is enough to say that we are not justified in confining Q 
solely to what is preserved in Matthew and Luke. 7 We may 
admit that Mark shows some use of Q. " We hold, therefore, 
that Mark knew and used Q, but only to a limited extent." 8 
If so, then Mark is later than Q. But Moffatt opposes the 
idea that Mark knew Q. 9 

1 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 124. 

2 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 87. 

3 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 18. 

4 Luke the Physician, transl., 1907, p. 14. 

6 The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882, pp. 305^. 

6 Einl., ii, p. 427. 

7 Cf. "The Original Extent of Q" by Streeter, Oxford Studies in the 
Synoptic Problem, pp. 184-208. 

8 Streeter, "St. Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q," p. 178, Oxford 
Studies in the Synoptic Problem. 

9 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 191 1, p. 221; 
Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien, pp. 73/., makes Q de- 
pendent on Mark. 



12 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

But what is the date of Q? Streeter says: "The interval 
of time between the original writing of Q and its use by 
Matthew and Luke was probably very considerable." * 
"The Gospel of Mark forms the transition" 2 from Q to 
Matthew and Luke. Streeter thinks that Q "was probably 
written twenty years before Mark." 3 Ramsay 4 holds that Q 
was written during the ministry of Jesus, since it stops short 
of the events of Passion Week. Salmon 6 holds the same 
view. Streeter 6 holds that the expectation of the nearness 
of the Parousia explains the absence of the Passion Week 
in Q and suggests twelve years after the death of Christ as 
a probable date for Q. Nolloth 7 has argued that the com- 
mon use of shorthand during this period renders it quite 
possible that Q contained shorthand reports of the Sayings 
of Jesus. If we place Q at 42 a. d. and Luke's Gospel at 58 
a. d., we seem to have the limits for Mark's Gospel. Allen 
indeed proposes 50 A. d. as the date for our Gospel of Mark. 8 
It is interesting to note how the most recent and reliable 
synoptic criticism thus points to an early date for Mark's 
Gospel. 

4. Matthew's Use of Mark. — If Matthew's Greek Gospel 
made use of Mark, as is now generally admitted, though 
some voices insist that Mark made use of the Aramaic Mat- 
thew, the argument for the early date of Mark is made still 
stronger. In spite of Zahn's contention that Mark used the 
Aramaic Matthew, 9 M. Jones concludes that " the use of St. 
Mark by the authors of the First and Third Gospels as one 

1 Oxford Studies, p. 205. 

2 Ibid., p. 210. 

3 "Literary Evolution of the Gospels," Oxford Studies, p. 219. 

4 The Expositor, May, 1907. 

5 The Human Element in the Gospels, 1907, p. 274. 

6 Oxford Studies, p. 215. 

7 The Rise of the Christian Religion, 191 7, p. 23. Nolioth (p. 20) places 
Mark's Gospel " about a. d. 50." 

8 Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p. 213. 

9 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., vol. ii, pp. 601/. 



THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 13 

of their main sources seems proved beyond dispute." * It is 
not necessary to show that Luke made use of Matthew to 
prove the early date of Mark's Gospel. 

5. The "Aramaic" Mark. — Allen proposes a still earlier 
date for Mark's Gospel in an Aramaic form: " A very suitable 
date would be about the year a. d. 44, when St. Peter, who 
had been prominent as a leader of the Church at Jerusalem, 
was obliged to leave the city. 2 But the whole question of 
the Aramaic original of our Greek Mark is quite uncertain. 
In fact, I am inclined to agree with the judgment of Swete 3 
that a translator would hardly give both the transliteration 
and the translation of the Aramaic. Allen seeks to overcome 
this point by suggesting that Mark himself wrote the Aramaic 
while with Peter in Jerusalem about 44 a. d., and made the 
translation while with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch about 
50 A. D. I do not care to discuss here the position of 
Blass, Marshall, and Wellhausen that the original Mark 
was in Aramaic. The point that is pertinent is that 
the date of the Greek Mark seems to be as early as 

A. D. 50. 

6. Possible Editions by Mark. — It is true that some of 
the early Christian writers suggest Rome as the place where 
the Gospel of Mark was written. Papias, however, has noth- 
ing as to the place of writing. Harnack examines with care 
all these traditions, and concludes: " Tradition asserts no 
veto against the hypothesis that St. Luke, when he met St. 
Mark in the company of St. Paul the prisoner was permitted 
by him to peruse a written record of the Gospel history which 
was essentially identical with the Gospel of St. Mark which 
was given to the Church at a later time." 4 Harnack sug- 
gests, therefore, that Mark made a " final revision" of his 
work in Rome. There is nothing incongruous in the idea 

1 The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, 19 14. 

2 Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p. 13. 

3 Commentary, p. xxxvii. 

4 Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 133. 



14 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

that Mark revised his Gospel once or twice. Holdsworth, 1 
indeed, suggests that Mark wrote one edition of his Gospel 
at Caesarea, a shorthand report of Peter's sermon (Acts 10: 
34jf.)> another later in Egypt, and another in Rome. It is 
not necessary to pass finally on these suggestions. They all 
go to show how criticism has cautiously felt its way in the 
study of the Gospel sources. Allen 2 is willing to concede a 
third edition of Mark's Gospel in Rome. Swete wished to 
reserve the question of editorial revision for further study, 3 
though he was convinced of the unity of the work and of the 
Marcan authorship. Mark was with Peter in Jerusalem 
(Acts 12:12) and later in Rome (Babylon, 1 Pet. 5:13), and 
possibly at other times. If his Gospel, as Papias said, rests 
primarily on the preaching of Peter, there is ample room 
for it in the early period. There is nothing to support 
the tradition in Irenaeus that Mark wrote after Peter's 
death. 

7. The Editing of Redactors— The view of Wendling calls 
for remark. He suggests three "Marks" (M 1 , M 2 , M 3 = our 
Mark). Williams makes a careful survey of this problem 
under the title, "A Recent Theory of the Origin of St. Mark's 
Gospel. ' ' 4 Wendling's books 5 have attracted considerable at- 
tention. 6 Williams notes " the extreme interest and acuteness 
of the literary analysis by which the theory is supported" 7 
and says: "It cannot be denied the merit of ingenuity and 
plausibility," 8 He concludes, however, "that a great deal, 
if not all, of Wendling's elaborate structure will have to be 
dismantled" and thinks that the facts have been "forced into 

1 Gospel Origins, 1913^.115. 

2 Op. cit., p. 13. 

3 Comm.y p. lix. 

4 Oxford Studies, pp. 387-421. 

5 Urmarcus, 1905; Die Entstehung des Marcus-evangeliums, 1908. 

6 Cf. Menzies, Review of Theology and Philosophy, July, 1909; The 
Earliest Gospel; A Historical Study of the Gospel according to Mark, 1901. 

7 Op. cit., p. 390. 

8 Op. cit., p. 403. 



THE DATE OF MARK S GOSPEL 1 5 

a Procrustean mould in order to be explained." 1 The Ur- 
Marcus theory still appeals to some minds, and Moffatt sug- 
gests " hesitation not in the acceptance but in the working out 
of the hypothesis that the canonical Mark, written shortly 
after a. d. 70, is based for the most part on Mark's draft of the 
Petrine reminiscences." 2 Bacon calls our canonical Mark R. 
(Redactor) in distinction from Mark's Petrine Reminiscences 
which were used by the Redactor. Bacon follows the tradi- 
tion of Irenaeus that "Mark" (Redactor) wrote after the 
death of Peter as "explicit" and speaks of "the futile attempt 
of the divergent form of the tradition in Clement of Alex- 
andria, to bring the writing under the imprimatur of Peter 
without making him responsible for all its contents." 3 The 
conclusion of Harnack, quoted above, seems more plausible, 
that these contradictory traditions leave us free to settle 
the date of Mark's Gospel apart from the stories in Irenaeus 
and Clement of Alexandria. It is hard to feel the force of 
Bacon's next clause: "Even the very beginnings of the com- 
position must therefore date almost as late as the outbreak 
of the Jewish War (66 A. d.)." The "must therefore" rests 
upon Irenaeus, who is contradicted by Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome. "As it is, Mark must 
be dated about 70-75 A. d., and Matthew but very few years 
later." 4 This positive tone of Bacon is dependent upon the 
certainty of his theory of a Redactor. It is pertinent to quote 
the cautious judgment of Sir John C. Hawkins in his Horn 
Synopticce (2d edition, 1909, p. 152). "On the whole, it 
seems to me that such an examination of the Marcan pecul- 
iarities, as has now been attempted, supplies results w T hich are 
largely in favor of the view that the Petrine source used by 
the two late Synoptics was not an 'Ur-Marcus,' but St. 
Mark's Gospel almost as we have it. Almost; but not quite." 

1 Op. tit., p. 403. 

2 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 227. 

3 The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, p. xxxi. 

4 Bacon, Beginnings of the Gospel Story, p. xxxiii. 



1 6 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Hawkins sees "a later editor's hand" in 1:1, " Jesus Christ"; 
9 141 , " Christ's " and some half dozen other details. Burkitt * 
also opposes the Ur-Markan Theory. 

8. The Narrow Limits. — It cannot be said that the Syn- 
optic Problem is settled. No problem in human knowledge 
is ever settled, so that no intellect can raise objections to 
it. Mr. J. M. Robertson has a new book, The Jesus Problem, 
in which he seeks to show that Jesus never existed and is 
only a myth of the imagination. But Maurice Jones carries 
most with him when he introduces his treatment of the 
Synoptic problem with this sentence: "The most notable 
achievement in the department of recent New Testament 
criticism is undoubtedly the fairly general agreement arrived 
at with regard to the mutual relations of the first three 
Gospels." 2 

It is not claimed that modern scholars are agreed as to 
the date of Mark's Gospel, only that "a very late date is not 
contended for" any longer. 3 As we have seen, the critics 
range from 44 a. d. to 75 a. r>. Those who contend for the 
later date (70-75 a. d.) argue mainly from Mark 13, which 
is made to depend on a "Little Apocalypse" circulated 
among the Jews at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem 
and incorporated into the Second Gospel. But it is equally 
possible that the hypothetical "Little Apocalypse" was a 
report of the discourse of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, as 
it purports to be, which was used by Mark. There is no 
real reason for thinking that Mark confined his Gospel to 
his own notes or recollections of Peter's discourses. He may 
have employed Q. He probably used oral and written 
sources as did Luke. Certainly the position of Mark in 
Jerusalem made it easy for him to learn the current inter- 
pretation of Jesus among the disciples. 

1 Gospel History and its Transmission, 1906. 

2 The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, p. 189. 

3 Jackson, "The Present State of the Synoptic Problem," Cambridge 
Biblical Essays, 1909, p. 440. 



THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 1 7 

Since writing thus far, I have turned to pp. 202 and 203 of 
Stanton's The Gospels as Historical Documents (Part II), 
where he gives his eight "conclusions from the foregoing 
inquiry " concerning Mark's Gospel. They are all in sub- 
stantial accord with the line of argument pursued in this 
chapter. Luke himself in his Gospel (1:1-4) should have 
taught us all long ago that the writing of the sayings and 
deeds of Jesus began very early, for he spoke of "many" 
such attempts. Perhaps most of them were more or less 
incomplete or gave only detached incidents or reports of 
single discourses or parables. The Oxyrhynchus Logia of 
Jesus, recently discovered, furnish a partial parallel to Q. 
Somewhere between 40 A. d. and 60 A. d., I should say, Mark 
wrote his Gospel substantially as we have it now and in 
Greek. It seems to me that the evidence as a whole points 
to 50 A. d. as the probable date. 

9. The Early Date Most Probable, — At any rate, we can 
all be grateful for the critical unanimity with which the 
priority of Mark is acknowledged and the correspondingly 
early date of this Gospel. It is worth all that it has cost to 
reach solid ground here. 1 Schweitzer says: "The liberal 
Jesus has given place to the Germanic Jesus" under the 
teaching of Nietzsche, a curious prophecy of present-day 
conditions. "At the present day the Germanic spirit is 
making a Jesus after its own likeness." 2 That is too gloomy 
a view and was expressed by Schweitzer to make room for 
his own "eschatological" Jesus. More just is the state- 
ment of von Soden about Mark's Gospel: "For a first at- 
tempt to combine in a complete whole the isolated written 
and oral reminiscences of the public ministry of our Lord 
current at the time, this Gospel is a masterly performance." 3 

The evidence on the whole demands an early date. This 
date is consonant with the character of the Gospel which 

1 The Quest of the Historical Jesus, transl., 1910, p. 307. 

2 Ibid. 

3 The History of the Early Christian Literature , transl., 1906, p. 162. 



l8 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

preserves the life-like touches from the preaching of Peter 
and allows some use of Q and other data from various sources 
with a few editorial touches some years later either by Mark 
himself, as is most likely, or by an editor. In Mark's Gospel, 
therefore, we catch the very atmosphere of the first gener- 
ation of those who walked with Jesus over the hills and 
plains of Galilee. The note of wonder runs all through the 
Gospel of Mark. The people are seen all aglow with excite- 
ment in the presence of the Wonder- Worker. Peter pre- 
serves the freshness of that early morn of Christianity. 
Mark himself is full of it, and makes abundant use of the 
historical present tense as he visualizes the glory and rapture 
of those early days of the kingdom of God on earth. The 
frequent use of the imperfect tense is to the same effect. It 
is as if a cinema machine had snapped the moving crowds 
as they thronged about Jesus and followed him from place 
to place. The picture is toned down in Matthew and in 
Luke, but in Mark the negative has the lines in the picture 
still. It is no wonder that the children are fond of Mark's 
Gospel, for they can see Mark's picture of Jesus and their 
eyes sparkle as they behold Him. 



CHAPTER III 

mark's gospel and the synoptic problem 1 

"It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things 
accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent 
Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty of those things 
wherein thou wast instructed." Luke 1:3-4. 

The story of Jesus still fascinates the minds of men in 
spite of all efforts to relegate it to the limbo of myth or 
legend. Strauss and Renan failed to remove the Gospels 
from the sphere of serious historical documents. Drews 2 
and Smith 3 have likewise failed completely to destroy the 
historical character of Jesus in the judgment of a stout skep- 
tic like F. C. Conybeare. 4 The Great War shook the world 
out of whatever indifference to Christ had come. Whatever 
is true about the Miracle of the Marne or the angels at Mons 
or the White Comrade in the trenches in France, men are 
to-day face to face with Christ in a new and wonderful sense. 

1. The Necessity of Knowing Mark. — The religious world 
is right up against the credibility and origin of the Gospel 
narratives. Right across one's path in the pursuit of this 
inquiry lies the Gospel of Mark. "No man can pretend to 
have seriously examined the historical basis of the Christian 
faith who has not to some extent applied the ordinary proc- 
esses of historical criticism to the Gospel of Mark, the 
earliest extant embodiment of the evangelic story." 5 Mark's 

1 The Constrictive Quarterly , March, 1918. 

2 The Christ Myth, transl., 1914. 

3 The Pre-Christian Jesus, 1906. 

4 The Historical Christ, 19 14. 

5 Bacon, The Beginnings of the Gospel Story, p. vii. 

19 



20 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Gospel challenges the interest of the average man and of the 
expert in New Testament literature. Indeed, some of the 
critics find in Mark the only historical basis for crediting 
the story of Jesus Christ. Schweitzer chides the radical 
critics thus: " Modern historical theology, therefore, with 
its three-quarters skepticism, is left at last with only a torn 
and tattered Gospel of Mark in its hands." x Schweitzer 
has his own pet theory of eschatology as the sole explanation 
of the teaching of Jesus, but he does not hesitate to break 
a lance with the foremost German scholars. He scouts the 
whimsicalities of Schmiedel and von Soden about Mark and 
"Ur-Markus," "to retain just so much of the Gospel as will 
fit into their construction." 2 "But in that case, how can 
a modern Life of Jesus be founded on the Marcan plan? 
How much of Mark is, in the end, historical?" 3 

Harnack is more optimistic than Schweitzer about the 
value of Mark, though he laments the sad plight of gospel 
criticism. "Hence the wretched plight in which the criticism 
of the Gospels finds itself in these days, and indeed has al- 
ways found itself — with the exception of the work of a few 
critics, and apart from the Marcan problem, which has been 
treated with scientific thoroughness." 4 One is caught by 
the phrase "scientific thoroughness" about the study of 
Mark's Gospel. At once then, we wish to know what modern 
scientific research has to say about Mark's Gospel. We have 
heard a deal about the alleged unhistorical character of the 
Fourth Gospel as compared with the Synoptic Gospels. We 
have heard much also concerning the "Jesus or Christ" con- 
troversy 5 after we turn to the Synoptic Gospels. Even there 
we find "Christ." We were told to discount Paul as the one 
who had perverted the simple gospel of the Kingdom preached 

1 The Quest of the Historical Jesus, transl., p. 307. 

2 Ibid j p. 304. 

3 Ibid, p. 306. 

4 The Sayings of Jesus, transl., p. xiii. 

5 See Supplement to the Hibbert Journal for January, 1909. 



mark's gospel and the SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 21 

by Jesus through his Pharisaic rabbinism on the one hand 
and his Hellenism and mystery-religion affinities on the other. 
So we were told to go "back to Christ" and away from Paul. 
But now the Synoptic Gospels are said to be as guilty of 
theology as Paul. Bacon even discusses "the Paulinism of 
Mark," * as he notes Paul's influence on the Fourth Gospel. 2 
Bacon is right in saying that modern interest is not satisfied 
with proof that such a man wrote one of the Gospels at such 
a date. "What was the event which gave rise to the story? 
Through what phases has the tradition passed to acquire its 
canonical forms?" 3 This is certainly true. "Our first duty, 
with the Gospel as with every other ancient document, is to 
interpret it with reference to its own time." 4 

2. The Modern vs. the Traditional View of Mark. — What 
then is Mark's Gospel in the light of modern criticism? 
The book has absolutely nothing to say about itself or its 
author. It is thus different from the Gospel of John (John 
20:30/.; 21:24) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4), both of 
which have something to tell about the method employed in 
using the material at hand. We have to look elsewhere, 
therefore, for any information concerning the origin of Mark's 
Gospel save what may be obtained by comparing the writing 
with the other Gospels. The early commentators seem to 
have neglected this Gospel. Victor of Antioch (fifth or sixth 
century a. d.) the earliest known commentator on Mark, 
"complains that, while St. Matthew and St. John had re- 
ceived the attention of a number of expositors, and St. Luke 
also had attracted a few, his utmost efforts had failed to de- 
tect a single commentary upon St. Mark." 5 It is plain that 
for a long time Mark's Gospel was less esteemed and less used 

1 Beginnings of the Gospel Story , p. xxvii. 

2 The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 7. 

3 Ibid, p. vii. 

4 Burkitt, Preface to transl. of Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical 
Jesus, p. vii. 

6 Swete, Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, p. xxix. 



22 STUDIES IN MARKS GOSPEL 

than the others, in particular less than the Gospels of Mat- 
thew and John, the work of apostles, while Mark's at best 
was only the work of an apostle's disciple. As compared 
with Luke's Gospel it was much briefer and less complete 
and without Luke's literary charm. Besides, Irenaeus 
asserted that Mark's Gospel was later than that of Matthew 
and of less intrinsic historical worth. His order of the 
Gospels is, Matthew (in Aramaic first), Mark, Luke, John, 
and Zahn supports this view with his great learning. 1 Au- 
gustine 2 speaks of Mark as the " follower and abbreviator of 
Matthew," a view that seems directly counter to the modern 
view. The uncertainty among the ancient writers as to the 
place and value of Mark's Gospel is shown by the fact that 
different writers used each of the symbols to describe Mark 
(the lion, the man, the ox, the eagle). And yet Holdsworth 
is correct in saying: "The priority of St. Mark's Gospel is 
now generally accepted by modern critics." 3 

3. But the True Origin of Mark's Gospel Preserved from the 
First. — So then we moderns plume ourselves on a clearer 
conception of the critical and historical value of Mark's 
Gospel than many of the ancients. "But it remained for 
a later age to realize and appreciate to the full the report 
which has descended to us from the senior Apostle through 
the ministry of John Mark." 4 After all, however, the an- 
cients seemed to have known the true origin of Mark's Gospel. 
Papias (quoted in Eusebius, H. E. iii, 39) gives a true picture 
of the Gospel of Mark as we have it to-day. 5 One could wish 
that Eusebius had given all that Papias had to say on the 
subject. Papias quotes the Presbyter John as the authority 
for his words about Mark's Gospel. This Presbyter John 

1 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., 1909, vol. 2, pp. 398, 418/f., 
etc. 

2 de Cons. Evang., 1, 4. 

3 Gospel Origins , 19 13, p. 104. 

4 Swete, op. cit., p. xxxiii. 

5 See next chapter for a full discussion of the testimony of Papias. 



mark's gospel and the synoptic problem 23 

was almost certainly the Apostle John. 1 If so, we have here a 
criticism of the Second Gospel by the Apostle John as reported 
by Papias. 2 This criticism credits this Gospel with accuracy 
of statement, but lack of order, although modern scholars 
consider Mark's Gospel as the framework of both Matthew 
and Luke. Probably by "order" (vvvraiiv) here is meant 
fullness and completeness as compared with the other Gos- 
pels rather than mere chronology. This point is true, for 
Mark's Gospel has nothing about the infancy and youth of 
Jesus like Matthew and John, nothing about the early 
ministry of Jesus like John save the baptism and temptation 
of Jesus. It is mainly a narration of leading events in the 
Galilean ministry of Jesus with the story of Passion Week 
and the Resurrection. 

4. Connection of Mark with Peter. — The connection of 
Mark and Peter is attested by Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- 
andria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome. 
They do not agree in all details as to time and place of the 
writing of the Gospel, the occasion for Mark's doing it, or 
the extent of Peter's influence on the work. Rome is the 
place usually assigned and the impulse is given to the Roman 
Christians who wished Mark to preserve for them the teach- 
ings of Peter about Christ. This was done with the silent 
acquiescence of Peter (Clement of Alexandria), with Peter's 
approval and authorization (Jerome), after Peter's death 
(Irenaeus). We may pass by the various discrepancies in the 
tradition with the recognition of the undoubted fact that 
Mark was associated with Peter in Rome (Babylon) according 
to Peter's own words (1 Peter 5:13). Some have suggested 
that Peter refers to his purpose to see to the preservation of 
his knowledge of Christ in his words in 2 Peter 1:15, assuming 
the genuineness of this disputed epistle. 

It may be said at once that there is nothing in Mark's 
Gospel inconsistent with this tradition that Mark used Peter's 

1 Dom Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel. 

2 Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 438/. 



24 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

recollections (a7rofivYjfxovevfxaTa) of Jesus in the preparation 
of his Gospel. We do not have to say that Mark had no 
other source of information or that he acted as the mere 
amanuensis of Peter who dictated the Gospel. Mark's 
mother Mary was a leader in the Jerusalem church and her 
home was the resort of the great spirits in early Christianity 
(Acts 12:12). Peter, Barnabas, John and the rest would 
here talk freely in conversation and in sermons about Jesus' 
life and work. It is quite possible that John Mark early 
began to make notes of some of these things. At any rate, 
when Paul speaks of Mark as " useful to him for ministry " 
(2 Tim. 4:11) while with Paul in Rome (Col. 4:10), it may 
be that he has reference to Mark's reports of what Peter 
and the rest had said about Christ. Indeed, Mark's Gospel 
may already have been written ere Paul was in Rome the 
first time. Paul may have read it and may even refer to this 
service of Mark. It is worthy of notice also that the report 
of Peter's sermon at Caesarea (Acts 10:36-43) is strangely 
like the general outlines of Mark's Gospel Mark may even 
have been one of the *'six" with Peter on this occasion and 
may have made fragmentary notes of this and of other dis- 
courses by Peter. 

5. Notes of an Eyewitness. — The notes of an eye-witness 
are manifest in Mark's Gospel. They are admitted by all 
and include such details as the look of anger (3:5), the single 
pillow in the boat (4:38), the disposal of the five thousand 
like garden beds (Trpaa-tal TrpavioX 6:40) and the green grass 
(6:39), Christ sighing over the blindness of the Pharisees 
(8:12), taking the children in his arms (9:36; 10:16), Christ's 
look of love upon the rich young ruler (10:21), and the cloud 
upon the young man's face (10:22). The graphic style of 
Mark is seen also in his frequent use of the imperfect tense 
to describe the scene, as the picture of Jesus watching the 
crowds and the rich in particular as they cast their gifts 
into the treasury (12:41). The historical present is also very 
common and is due to the same vividness and realistic 



mark's gospel and the synoptic problem 25 

imagination of an eyewitness. Mark sees the picture going 
on because of Peter's vivid description in his discourses. 
These picturesque details * do not prove that Peter is respon- 
sible for them, but only that they are due to an eyewitness. 
The early writers, as we have seen, ascribe the body of the 
Gospel to Peter as the ultimate source. The character of the 
Gospel is in perfect harmony with this uniform tradition. 
The very unobtrusiveness of the Petrine touches increases 
their importance (Swete). 

6, The Sources of Mark's Gospel. — -We are confronted there- 
fore with the sources of Mark's information. It is not nec- 
essary to assume that Peter was the sole source for Mark's 
Gospel. If Papias is correct in his statement that Mark was 
not a personal follower of Jesus and did not even hear him, 
he yet lived in Jerusalem and had access to the reports of many 
who did hear Jesus and who were eyewitnesses of many of 
the incidents in Christ's life. There is no more reason for 
confining Mark to one source than Luke. Schmiedel is 
correct in insisting that we must be willing to think of the 
" sources of sources." Mark's Gospel and Q (the Logia) 
themselves are based on sources. Luke fortunately has an 
historian's introduction to his Gospel and frankly records 
his method of investigation and use of materials for his 
book. He does not claim "originality." That is the very 
last qualification for the reliable historian. He must never 
invent his information. That he must obtain from others 
unless he is a participator in the events or a spectator of 
them. When Luke wrote, "many" had undertaken "to 
draw up a narrative concerning these matters which have 
been fulfilled among us" (1:1). Luke is himself a Greek 
Christian of Asia Minor or of Macedonia and probably had 
no personal acquaintance with the great matters of the 
recent past connected with the life and work of Jesus. We 
know, however, that he had two years in Palestine when 
Paul was a prisoner at Caesarea (24:27), assuming that 
1 See next chapter for fuller details. 



26 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Luke is the author of the Acts. He had ample time and 
opportunity during this period to get first-hand information 
from those who were close to Christ while on earth. He may 
even have seen and conversed with Mary, the Mother of 
Jesus, and his account of the birth of Jesus is certainly told 
from her standpoint as that in Matthew is reported from 
the point of view of Joseph. At Caesarea resided Philip, 
deacon and evangelist, and his four daughters (Acts 21:8/.). 
In Jerusalem Luke would see James the Lord's brother and 
many others, men and women, who were full of the great 
deeds and words of Jesus. Luke distinctly states that he 
received help from those "who from the beginning were 
eye-witnesses {avToirrai) and ministers (virripiTai) of the word" 
and who were thus in full possession of the facts. He 
had and used oral testimony therefore beyond a doubt. 
If Luke did so, why should not Mark have done likewise 
apart from Peter's oral witness of which Mark probably 
made frequent notes (shorthand or otherwise)? It is not 
necessary to go back to the oral theory as the explanation 
of all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels 
as Westcott so ably argued in his Introduction to the Four 
Gospels (1875) and as is still held by A. Wright. 1 The diffi- 
culty in the synoptic problem has been precisely this, that 
men have tried to explain all the phenomena by one hy- 
pothesis instead of being willing to see all the facts and to 
allow the free play of life instead of the narrow vise of a hard 
and fast theory. Sanday has presented with characteristic 
lucidity and force "the conditions under which the Gospels 
were written in their bearing upon some difficulties of the 
Synoptic Problem." 2 He shows that "the Evangelists are 
not copyists but historians" (p. 12). They are not slavishly 
transcribing minute details from this or that document or 
jotting down stenographic reports of discourses. They do 
use reliable sources of information, but they often retell the 

1 The Gospel According to St. Luke in Greek, 1900. 

2 Pages 3-26 in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 191 1. 



mark's gospel and the synoptic problem 27 

story in their own words or dovetail the language from one 
source into their narration with the freedom of ancient and 
modern historians. Variations of language are not matters 
for surprise, but are to be expected. " And yet the Gospels 
are not exactly histories/' Sanday adds. 1 That is to say, 
they are not mere objective records which are colorless and 
non-committal. They are all party pamphlets in the sense 
that they are written by men wholly committed to the 
acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah, but 
yet not such as the Pharisees expected. He is the real Mes- 
siah and King of the spiritual Kingdom of God in the hearts 
of men and is both Son of God and Son of man. All four 
Gospels champion this thesis and prove it, though each has 
its own angle of vision. The approach is individual in each 
instance, and the touch to the picture is different, though 
the broad outline is the same. Mark's Gospel is more ob- 
jective, but is still a theological interpretation of Jesus for 
the Roman world. Matthew's Gospel is a direct plea to 
Jewish readers to show that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. 
Luke's Gospel has the broader outlook of the Greek culture 
and presents the universal aspects of Christ the Saviour of 
men. John's Gospel gives the eternal relations of Christ's 
person and work and interprets Christ's deity in terms of 
the current philosophy. Sanday insists rightly that we take 
note of the actual conditions (psychological and external) 
under which the Gospels were written. The use of papyrus 
rolls instead of codices or printed books played its part 
in the matter of convenience in consulting the docu- 
ments. 

7. Mark Used by Luke and Matthew. — Luke states (1:1-4) 
also that he made use of the written accounts of the life of 
Jesus. The ancients of the first century were great letter- 
writers as we know from the papyri. They used shorthand 
and made notes of all sorts. Cicero employed shorthand in 
the trial of Catiline, and it was in common use in the first 
1 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 14. 



28 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

century a. d. 1 We must get rid of the idea that the first 
century a. d. was an ignorant age. Mahaffy has shown that 
the Graeco-Roman civilization "was so perfect that, as far 
as it reached, men were more cultivated in the strict sense 
than they ever have been since." 2 He adds, "The Hellen- 
istic world was more cultivated in argument than we are 
nowadays." Palestine was not in a backwater, but right 
in the stream of Greek culture as it flowed north and south, 
east and west. The Pharisees resisted the influences of 
Hellenism, but it was pervasive nevertheless. "The period 
was one of great literary activity in the Jewish world. These 
considerations, while they do not prove, go far to commend 
the opinion that the common, non-Marcan material of the 
First and Third Gospels was committed to writing within 
the time of our Lord's public ministry." 3 If Matthew the 
publican, who was used to making and keeping data, wrote 
Q or the Logia, he may very well have made copious notes 
of the sayings of Jesus which he so often heard. Luke 
expressly says that "many" (ttoXXol) "undertook to draw 
up a narrative" {iTre^up-qaav avard^aa-Qat $iiqyr)(rw). The 
language implies an orderly arrangement of some sort of 
a more or less extended character. By Luke's time the 
matter had passed beyond the stage of notes or jottings or 
groups of incidents or anecdotes. Recent discoveries in the 
papyri have restored to us some of the Sayings of Jesus 
(Logia) introduced with the formula "Jesus says." 4 Luke 
throws no discredit on his sources or the use made of the 
data by previous narratives. He does affirm that, like a 
true historian in the spirit of a Thucydides, he has made 
accurate research through all the data at hand, both oral and 
written, and has endeavored to make an orderly presentation 

1 Cf. Hibbert Journal, April, 191 2, p. 723. 

2 Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire, 1905, p. 137. 

8 Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 191 7, note 1, p. 23. 
4 Cf, Grenfell and Hunt, Logia of Jesus, 1897; New Sayings of Jesus, 
1904. 



MARK S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 29 

of the real facts in order that his friend and probable patron 
Theophilus may "know the certainty concerning the things 
wherein thou wast instructed" (1:4). He subjected tradi- 
tion to the crucible of criticism as far as he w^as able to ex- 
ercise it. We have already seen the probable judgment of 
the Apostle John (as reported by Papias) concerning the 
value of Mark's Gospel. Then we have the probable refer- 
ence of Luke to Mark's Gospel as one of the sources used 
by him in the construction of his book. We may grant 
more literary skill to Luke than to Matthew and Mark, but 
there is no essential reason for doubting that they pursued 
approximately the same method as Luke in preparing the 
Gospels which we have. The sources probably varied and 
we must allow full play for the individual judgment of the 
Evangelist. "We cannot lay down a rigid rule to which all 
use of books would strictly conform. We must leave a 
margin for the habits of the particular wTiter. One man 
would trust his memory, and run the risk of trusting his 
memory for a longer period than another." 1 Did Luke, in 
fact, make use of Mark's Gospel? Holtzmann in his Com- 
mentary on the Synoptic Gospels 2 makes a very able and, 
I think, conclusive argument to show that Mark's Gospel 
is one of the main sources of our canonical Matthew and 
Luke. He regards this as no longer hypothesis, but ac- 
knowledged fact. It cannot justly be put quite so positively 
as that when Zahn, as we have seen, still ably contends that 
Matthew is prior to Mark and that Mark made use of Mat- 
thew. To make this seem at all possible Zahn has to main- 
tain an early Aramaic Matthew to which Mark had access. 
To be sure, Matthew could be prior to Mark and Mark still 
be prior to Luke. But, as a rule, the scholars who make 
Mark prior to Luke also place it before Matthew. Gould 
says: "That Holtzmann, with his evident skepticism, and 
his absolute and unqualified rejection of mere traditionalism, 

1 Sanday, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 19. 

2 Die Synoptiker Handcommentar, 3d edition, 1901. 



30 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

should accept the general historicity of the Synoptics, is the 
most noticeable element in the whole situation." * The 
" Two-Document Hypothesis" lies at the basis of most of 
the progress made in our knowledge of the origin of the 
Synoptic Gospels. This position is accepted by Sanday and 
the other writers in the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Prob- 
lem (191 1). "We assume what is commonly known as the 
' Two-Document Hypothesis.' We assume that the marked 
resemblances between the first Three Gospels are due to the 
use of common documents, and that the fundamental docu- 
ments are two in number" (p. 2). These documents are 
our Mark or "a complete Gospel identical with our St. 
Mark's, which was used by the Evangelists whom we know 
as St. Matthew and St. Luke," and a collection consisting 
mainly of discourses " which supplied the groundwork of 
certain common matter in St. Matthew and St. Luke." It 
is not difficult for one to see the force of this statement of 
Sanday if he will look at the parallel tables of matter common 
to Mark, Matthew, and Luke in any Harmony of the Gospels 
like those of Broadus or Stevens and Burton or Riddle. A 
better w r ay still is to study the lists in Hawkins' Horce Syn- 
opticce (2d edition, 1909) or in Allen's Commentary on Mat- 
thew {International Critical) or in Swete on Mark. Thus 
one is bound to see that the same general order of events is 
followed and that the framework of Mark lies at the basis 
of both Matthew and Luke. Mark's order is " confirmed 
either by St. Matthew or St. Luke, and the greater part of 
it by both." 2 St. Luke "is generally in fair agreement 
with St. Mark, when the two are dealing with the same 
events." 3 Out of 106 sections of Mark's Gospel only four, 
besides the headline, are absent from both Matthew and 
Luke. Ninety-three are in Matthew and eighty-one in 
Luke. 4 There is a great deal of material in both Matthew 

1 International Critical Commentary on Mark, p. xlvii. 

2 H. H. Woods, Stadia Biblica, ii, p. 62. 

3 Swete, p. lxiv. 4 Ibid., p. Ixiii. 



MARK S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 3 1 

and Luke not in Mark, while only one-sixth of Mark's Gos- 
pel occurs in it alone. And most of this peculiar Marcan 
material is due to greater fullness of detail in the picturesque 
presentation of the same events narrated in Matthew and 
Luke. There are, however, some eighty verses in Mark 
that have no parallel in Matthew or Luke. It is far more 
likely that the brief and life-like narration of Mark was 
amplified by Matthew and Luke than that Mark, as Au- 
gustine said, abbreviated Matthew or Luke. It can be 
shown that some documentary connection between the 
Synoptic Gospels is necessary by a case like that in Matt. 
9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24, when right in the midst of a 
saying of Jesus there is inserted in each instance a parenthet- 
ical comment of the writer: "Then saith he to the sick of 
the palsy." There are other instances as clear as this. The 
argument may therefore be considered as complete. Luke 
did make use of Mark and so apparently did Matthew. 

8. Mark and Q. — The purpose of this article does not call 
for an extensive discussion of Q, the other document appar- 
ently used in common by Matthew and Luke. Critics are 
not agreed as to the contents of the hypothetical Q. 1 Some 
would confine it to the matter common to Matthew and 
Luke. Others would assign to Q much of the non-Marcan 
matter in either Matthew or Luke. Others still would make 
it identical with Papias' Logia of Matthew? But did Mark 
have the use of Q also? Wellhausen wondered "that such 
an investigation up to the present has never been set on 
foot. 7 ' 3 But it has been set on foot. Streeter has a very 
able treatment of St. Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q. A He 
argues that Mark knew and used Q from memory and wrote, 

1 See Streeter's The Original Extent of Q (Oxford Studies), pp. 185-208. 

2 Cf, Sir John C. Hawkins, Probabilities as to the So-called Double 
Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 
Problem), p. 105. 

3 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 73. 

4 Oxford Studies, pp. 165-183. 



32 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

not to supersede Q, but to supplement it, since Q consisted 
mainly of discourses, just as John wrote his Gospel to sup- 
plement the Synoptic Gospels. If this is true, the age of Q 
becomes "a subject of deep interest." 1 

It does not fall within the purpose of this article to discuss 
the origin of our canonical Matthew. My own views on 
that subject are given in the Introduction to my Handbook 
to Matthew in the Bible for Home and School series. I do not 
feel that the case of Matthew is as clear as that of Luke who 
discusses his use of his sources. 2 Papias' remark about the 
Aramaic Logia of Matthew is hard to set aside and yet our 
present Matthew does not appear to be a translation of an 
Aramaic original. It is quite possible that Matthew did 
first prepare an Aramaic Logia and that he later wrote his 
expanded Gospel in Greek. This Aramaic Logia, translated 
into Greek, may be the Q used by Matthew and Luke and 
probably also by Mark. 

We know that Luke used Aramaic sources (written or 
oral) for the first two chapters of his Gospel and probably 
also for the opening chapters of Acts. 3 Mark makes some 
transliterations and then translations of Aramaic words 
used by Jesus who certainly spoke much, possibly mainly, 
in Aramaic. But I must contend that Jesus spoke at times 
in the current Greek. 4 Wellhausen holds that Mark wrote 
originally in Aramaic. This view was advanced with vigor 
in The Expositor (4th Series) by Prof. J. T. Marshall. Blass 
adheres to it in his Philology of the Gospels (ch. xi) as does 
Allen in his Commentary on Matthew. But it is difficult to 
think of our Greek Mark as a translation and, as Swete 
says, a translator would not have both transliterated and 

1 Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, note, p. 23. 

2 Cf. Bartlet, The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel (Oxford Studies), pp. 315- 

363- 

3 Cf. Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts, 19 16. 

4 Cf. my Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical 
Research, 2d edition, 191 5, pp. 26-29. 



mark's gospel and the synoptic problem 33 

translated Aramaic words. Besides, Papias knew nothing 
of an Aramaic Mark. Still less is to be said for the idea of 
a Latin Mark. Greek was the language of culture in Rome 
itself as we see from Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The 
Latin terms in Mark's Gospel are chiefly political, military, 
or monetary, as is natural. 

It remains for us to consider the possible revision of Mark's 
Gospel. Is our present Mark the original Mark? On this 
point Swete is clear and positive. "The present writer has 
risen from his study of the Gospel with a strong sense of the 
unity of the work, and can echo the requiescat Ur-Markus 
which ends a recent discussion. But he is not prepared to 
express an opinion as to the nature and extent of the editorial 
revision which St. Mark's original has undergone — a point 
which he desires to reserve for further consideration." * 
This judgment probably represents the sanest criticism of 
the day. There are some indications in our present Mark 
of editorial additions of a later date than the original work. 
The most important of these is, of course, the disputed 
ending after 16:8 which occurs in three forms. Some ev- 
idence exists also of the use of Matthew's Gospel by Mark 
as we now have it. This evidence is not conclusive in spite 
of the arguments of Schmiedel in the article Gospels in the 
Encyclopedia Biblica. Maclean 2 properly terms these 
"doubtful cases." The priority of our Mark in these in- 
stances to Matthew and Luke is not certain. But editorial 
revision will account sufficiently for these few instances, 
if they are really later. Bacon is certain of this redactor and 
undertakes to point out the extent of his work. It is quite 
possible that a few additions were made to the original Mark 
by the author himself. So Salmon calls Mark "at once the 
oldest and the youngest of the Synoptics." Dr. A. Wright 
is a strong advocate of three editions of Mark's Gospel issued 

1 Footnote to pp. lviii and lix. 

2 Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels , article on Mark's 
Gospel, 



34 STUDIES IN MARK S GOSPEL 

by Mark himself. 1 There is no doubt at all that Mark used 
a variety of sources for his Gospel as did Matthew and Luke. 
It is not possible and not necessary to decide every detail 
about his sources; one need not be so "over-elaborate." 2 
There were, indeed, major sources and minor sources for 
each of the Synoptic Gospels, as Burton holds. 3 

If Mark used Q, this ancient document comes near the 
time of our Lord's ministry and death. We seem to be on 
terra firma in synoptic criticism in spite of many complex- 
ities and perplexities. The historical worth of Mark and of 
Q is not to be lightly set aside. Criticism can claim that it 
has restored to modern scholars the historical character of 
the Synoptic Gospels as the result of a century of discussion. 
The modern man can employ with confidence the same in- 
tellectual tools here that he uses in his other studies. And 
in Mark and Q he is face to face with Jesus Christ in all his 
glorious humanity and his wondrous deity, Son of man and 
Son of God. 

1 The Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890. 

2 Patton, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, 1915, p. 82. 

3 Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels, 1904, p. 49. 



CHAPTER IV 
peter's influence on mark's gospel * 

"Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were 
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Luke 1:2. 

1. Importance of the Subject. — The influence of Peter on 
Mark's Gospel is a matter of so much importance that it 
calls for separate and detailed discussion in addition to the 
various allusions already made to the subject. The modern 
theories of the origin of Mark's Gospel all postulate the dis- 
courses of Simon Peter as the chief source. Even Pfleiderer 
admits that Mark was "in close touch with Peter and the 
early congregation." 2 "Nothing can be urged against the 
clearest tradition that this Gospel was written by John 
Mark," and, he adds, about 70 a. d. He considers Mark as 
much a pupil of Paul as of Peter: "Such a man may well 
have been the author of the Gospel which unites the Jesus 
of the Palestinian tradition, the energetic hero of a Jewish 
reform movement, with the Christ of the Pauline theology, 
the suffering hero of a world mystical religion." 3 Bruno 
Bauer, indeed, holds that "the life of Jesus does not belong 
to history, but is the invention of the evangelist Mark, who, 
in the reign of Hadrian, used the philosophic ideas of his time 
to sketch the ideal picture of a popular king as opposed to 
the Roman Caesars." 4 But behind Mark stands the figure 
of Simon Peter. Von Soden boldly describes this Gospel as 

1 The Methodist Review (Nashville), April, 1918. 

2 Christian Origins, transl., 1906, p. 222. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid., p. 18. 

35 



36 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

"The Reminiscences of St. Peter written by St. Mark," * 
though he holds to the redactor theory (page 149) for our 
present Mark. Von Soden's estimate of Mark and Matthew 
is a good antidote for Schweitzer's pessimism: 

" Never has mankind listened to simpler, more direct, more 
living, and more convincing narratives drawn from the life 
of one of the great ones of human history. Never has there 
been bestowed upon men a work of purer literary art — a work 
wherein the artist is more completely effaced by his subject — 
than in these two original Gospels." 2 

2. The Early Testimony. — But why must we consider 
Peter the chief source of Mark's Gospel? The testimony of 
the early Christian writers is specific on this point. Papias 
is the first. He says, as quoted in Eusebius: 

"And this the Elder said: Mark, indeed, became Peter's 
interpreter and wrote accurately as many things as he re- 
membered of the things said or done by Christ, not, however, 
in order. For neither did he hear the Lord nor did he follow 
at his side; but afterwards, as I said (he followed) Peter, who 
used to adapt his teachings to the needs (of his hearers), 
but not as though he were making a connected (or full) 
account of the Lord's discourses. So then Mark made no 
mistake in thus writing some things as he recalled them; for 
he took thought for one thing not to omit anything of what 
he heard nor to make any false statement therein." 

We could sincerely wish that Papias had said more, or that, 
if he did, Eusebius had quoted all of it. Still, we do have 
quite a deal in this statement of Papias which belongs to the 
period A. D. 125-140. The Elder is here the Presbyter John, 
who is identified by Zahn with the Apostle John. 3 For a 
defense of the view that the Elder John and the Apostle 
John are one and the same, see Dom Chapman's John the 
Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (191 1). If the Elder here 

1 The History of Early Christian Literature, transl., 1906, p. 142. 

2 Ibid., p. 153. 

3 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., vol. ii, 1909, p. 438. 



peter's influence on mark's gospel 37 

is the Apostle John, then Papias records "this estimate of 
Mark's writing," * the recollections of Peter, from the Apostle 
John himself. We have John's opinion of the worth of Peter's 
discourses about Jesus and of Mark's report of them. Here 
we touch Gospel criticism in its early stages, and it is a re- 
freshing glimpse that we get of the whole subject. Zahn 2 
thinks that the Fourth Gospel "shows clear traces of its 
author's acquaintance with Mark." It is generally admitted 
that Luke used Mark as one of his sources, and refers to him 
in his Gospel (1:1-4). If so, we have two references to Mark's 
work by writers of the Gospels (first in Luke and later in the 
quotation in Papias). Luke gives no details, but John does, 
as reported by Papias. 

It is extremely interesting to examine carefully what John 
has to say about Mark's Gospel, since John wrote the Fourth 
Gospel with full knowledge of what Mark and the rest had 
written. We have, to be sure, only Papias' interpretation 
of the Elder's views about Mark, and the passage is quite 
condensed. But a number of points stand out clearly. It 
is not said that Mark's Gospel contains nothing except what 
Peter said. We are not to think of Peter dictating the Gospel 
to Mark who merely acted as Peter's amenuensis, as Tertius 
did for Paul's Epistle to the Romans (16:22). Justin Martyr 
says that Jesus "imposed on one of the apostles the name 
Peter, and when this accorded in his 'Memoirs' (6.Troi±v7iixovzv- 
fjuiTa) with this other fact that he named the two sons of 
Zebedee 'Boanerges,' which means 'Sons of Thunder,'" etc. 
Evidently Justin means to term Mark's Gospel "Peter's 
Memoirs," after the analogy of Xenophon's "Memorabilia 
of Socrates." Origen also says : "The Second is that according 
to Mark who prepared it, as Peter guided him, who therefore, 
in his catholic epistle acknowledged the evangelist as his 
son." Origen not only held that Mark wrote his Gospel while 
Peter was alive and before the First Epistle of Peter was 
written, but under the immediate supervision of Peter, 
1 Zahn, op. cit., p. 444. 2 Ibid. 



38 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

though not necessarily at his dictation. But Tertullian 
speaks of "that which was published by Mark, for it may be 
attributed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was." Papias 
does call Mark Peter's interpreter (ip/xrjvevTrjs Uirpov or 
dragoman, but he does not say that Peter acted in that 
capacity in the writing of his Gospel. In fact, he really 
affirms that he did not do so, for the words "as many as 
he remembered" (ocra ifxvrj/jLoveva-ev) naturally means that 
Mark wrote out his recollections after hearing Peter speak. 
It was not strictly shorthand copy, unless brief notes, but 
recollections after the discourse was over. The interval may 
have been very brief in most cases as it probably was, " writing 
thus some things as he recalled them" (ovrm cwa ypctyas 
cbs airenvrjtLovevo-ev). Irenaeus seems to affirm that Peter and 
Paul were both dead when Mark wrote out his reminiscences 
of Peter's discourses about Jesus. "But, after the depar- 
ture (c£oSoi/) of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
Peter, even he has handed down to us the things that were 
preached by Peter." It has been argued by some that Peter 
had in mind Mark's Gospel in 2 Peter 1:15: "Yea, I will give 
diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease 
(c£oSoi/) to call these things to remembrance" (rrjv tovtwv 
fivrjpTjv iroi&crOai) as Mark did. It is interesting to note 
also that Peter calls himself and others "eyewitnesses" 
(liroTrrai) of the majesty of Jesus on the Mount of Trans- 
figuration as Luke spoke of consulting "eyewitnesses" 
(avT07rraL) for his Gospel (1:2). Clement of Alexandria 
takes the view that Peter knew of Mark's purpose to write 
his Gospel at the suggestion of the Roman Christians: "When 
Peter learned it, he neither eagerly hindered nor approved 
it." But Jerome says: "When Peter heard of it, he gave his 
approval and authorized it to be read in the churches." 
Jerome actually says: "As the blessed Peter had Mark whose 
Gospel was prepared, Peter narrating and Mark writing." 
One can but feel that the tradition about Peter's connection 
with Mark's Gospel has thus grown through the centuries 



PETER S INFLUENCE ON MARK S GOSPEL 39 

since the simple statement of Papias. Eusebius, who pre- 
serves Papias' words for us, has this addition: "When the 
apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, 
he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized 
the writing to be read in the churches." Eusebius also has 
this: " Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of 
diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it was all along commonly 
said that Mark, who had become his intimate acquaintance 
and companion, made memoirs (awofivrjfwvevo-ai) of the dis- 
courses of Peter concerning the deeds of Jesus." The con- 
clusion of Eusebius is therefore: "Mark, indeed, writes this; 
but it is Peter who so witnesses about himself, for all that 
is in Mark are memoirs of the discourses of Peter." Here, 
then, Eusebius attributes the whole of Mark's Gospel to 
Peter. Papias does not say this, and, in fact, rather implies 
the contrary, though clearly making Peter's discourses the 
main source of the Second Gospel. Modern criticism here 
agrees with Papias rather than with Eusebius and Jerome. 
Mark almost certainly had other sources of information. 
Papias does not say whether Peter was alive or not when 
Mark wrote down his recollection of the discourses. There 
is no inherent probability against the position that Peter 
was alive. He may even have seen Mark's Gospel and have 
approved it, but he did not dictate it. This is clear from 
modern study. Mark is wholly responsible for what he put 
into the book. He acted as a real author and composed the 
Gospel with the best sources at his disposal, and relied chiefly 
on Peter's sermons. The Apostle John and Papias commend 
him for so doing. In a true sense, therefore, the Second 
Gospel is "Peter's Memorabilia of Jesus," but Mark is 
responsible for the literary aspects of the book. 

3. Mark's Gospel More than a Collection of Discourses. — 
Mark's Gospel is more than a collection of discourses. This 
Papias makes clear. It is true that Papias speaks of "the 
Lord's discourses" (t&v nvpiaK&v Xoy^W), and that this is 
the probable meaning here of Logia, though the word is ar> 



40 STUDIES IN MARK S GOSPEL 

plied to narrative as well as sayings. It is "a little word," 
a brief oracle, then any utterance without regard to its length. 
In the New Testament the word is applied also to the con- 
tents of the Mosaic law (Acts 7 138), and then to the substance 
of the Christian religion (Hebrews 5:12). But it is evident 
that Mark, according to Papias, did more than write down 
the sayings of Jesus, for he describes this Gospel as containing 
" the things said or done by Christ " rot, wo tov Xpua-Tov XexOivra 
rj wpaxOh/Ta). Peter discussed in his discourses both the deeds 
and the words of Jesus, as we see from Acts 10:34-41. 
When we turn to the Gospel of Mark, we find in it more 
of the deeds than the sayings of Christ, and it is in Mat- 
thew, Luke, and John that we find more of the discourses 
of Christ. The modern theory is that the Logia of Jesus, 
representing a collection of Christ's sayings, and possibly 
made by Matthew himself, is used along with Mark as the 
two main sources of Matthew and Luke. Mark gives the 
narrative and Q (the Logia) the discourses. But Mark is 
not without sayings of Christ, including some parables and 
the eschatological discourse in ch. 13 (the so-called Little 
Apocalypse). There is nothing in our canonical Mark that 
makes it more unlikely that Papias' description applies to it. 
We do not need to picture an "Ur-Marcus" for Papias. 

4. Mark's Use of His Material. — Papias quotes the Elder 
as saying that Mark wrote " not in order" (ov fievToi rd£ei) y 
and "not as if he were making a connected arrangement of 
the Lord's discourses" (ovx &cnrep crvvra^iv to>v KvpiaK&v 
TTOLovfjLtvos AoytW). But modern criticism finds the order 
of Mark preserved almost exactly in Luke and in its broad 
features in Matthew, who is topical in certain portions of 
his Gospel. Luke claims to write "in order" (KaOe^rjs, 1:3), 
and Luke's "order" is that of Mark. It is likely, however, 
that Papias does not mean quite the same by his "order" 
that Papias does. Luke has endeavored to produce a fairly 
complete and systematic presentation of his material in 
chronological order in the main. Mark, according to Papias, 



peter's influence on mark's gospel 41 

is a rather incomplete setting forth of certain aspects of 
Christ's life derived chiefly from Peter's discourses about 
Jesus. Now, as a matter of fact, Mark's Gospel has nothing 
about the infancy and the early life of Jesus as we have in 
Matthew and in Luke, and nothing concerning the early 
ministry as we find in John. It is, after the baptism of Jesus 
by John, mainly a sketch of the Galilean ministry with some 
incidents of the last year away from Galilee and the picture 
of Passion Week. This is in perfect harmony with the sketch 
of Peter's preaching in Acts 10:34-41, but is also in accord 
with the description of Papias, who insists that Mark wrote 
" accurately" (diept/iafe), just as Luke claimed for his work 
(1:3). Indeed, Papias insists, on the authority of the Elder, 
that Mark's one concern was to make no mistake, either by 
omission of what he knew or by false statement. Here, again, 
Mark is justified in modern criticism, which bears witness 
to the skill and accuracy of his work. First place in historical 
value is accorded Mark's Gospel because it ranks first in 
order of time and is incorporated almost bodily into Matthew 
and Luke. This is not to discredit Matthew and Luke, but 
simply to say that in Mark we possess the chief source used 
by both of them. 

Papias does not say that Mark reproduced everything 
that Peter said. It was not a mechanical performance on 
Mark's part, but he did his work, " writing thus some things 
{hixj) as he recalled them." The use of "some" implies that 
he made a selection out of the numerous discourses of Peter, 
of which he may have made notes, but took pains not to 
pass anything by (TrapoXnr&v) that was really important, 
and, in particular, not to tell an untruth (^va-aaOac tl). 
This is a pleasing word for any historian's work. Mark did 
not give way to fancy or to legend, of which we see a riot in 
the Apocryphal Gospels. He did not invent incidents to 
embellish his narrative or to enhance the power and glory 
of Jesus. He did not make up discourses for Jesus as Thucyd- 
ides did for his heroes. Mark indulged in no eulogy of Jesus. 



42 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

He told in straightforward manner the simple, unvarnished 
story of the facts as he had heard Peter do. The facts and 
words of Jesus are more eloquent than any adjectives that 
can be applied to them. They speak for themselves. Mat- 
thew and Luke follow Mark in their wondrous restraint in 
picturing Jesus. This characteristic simplicity is the very 
highest art, and partly explains how these Gospels rank as 
the greatest literary productions of the ages through sheer 
reality. There is the utter absence of anything artificial or 
dramatic, though the action itself is overwhelming. It is 
the greatest story of the ages told in the current vernacular 
Greek by simple-minded men who had no literary aspirations. 
They have excelled all other writers because they have seen 
Jesus only and have been willing to let the words and deeds 
of Christ speak for themselves. Thus the very absence 
of artifice has become consummate and unapproachable art. 
To be sure, they had the supreme subject, but so had the 
Apocryphal Gospels with their silly stories and legends. 
The difference lies in the element of reality and truth. The 
Gospels surpass all other books because the words of Jesus 
are the most original and vital of all time, and because his 
life is the highest conception of God that the world knows. 
The Gospels in utter childlike simplicity succeed in taking 
Jesus as he is and letting us see him. They do it, each in his 
own way, but they all do this supreme thing. Forever we 
must, therefore, come back to the Gospels for our Picture of 
Christ. At bottom the Picture comes from Peter in the 
Synoptic Gospels and John in the Fourth Gospel. 

5. Peter's Eyes. — In Mark's Gospel we catch the first draft 
of the portrait. Mark has been willing and able to use 
Peter's eyes for us. He has left the little turns of speech that 
Peter used to give color to his discourses. So in Mark we see 
Jesus with more distinctness of outline than in any of the 
Gospels. We see him at work, almost hear his voice. If 
one looks at his harmony of the Gospels, he will see that 
many of the vivid touches in Matthew and Luke really come 



peter's influence on mark's gospel 43 

from Mark, though they do omit many that are in the original 
passage in Mark. Mark's love of the historical present is 
largely dropped in Matthew and Luke, as Hawkins shows 
so clearly in his Horce Synopticce. Mark is more fond of the 
imperfect tense than any of the Gospels. Here, again, he is 
probably seeing through the eyes of Peter, who thus pictured 
the scene for his hearers. We see the same vividness in 
Mark's constant use of " straightway." It is all action and 
movement like real life. 

It is clear that in Mark's Gospel we have reports that 
come from an eyewitness. This can be shown abundantly 
in the many little details that occur in Mark's Gospel alone. 
His Gospel is the briefest of all, and yet it is often fullest when 
he does give an incident, for the very reason that he supplies 
so many little items that fill out the picture. Most of them are 
just the things that an alert mind like that of Peter would 
notice. It will be interesting to note some of them, though 
by no means all. In Mark 1:29-37 we have an incident 
that is obviously Petrine. After preaching in the synagogue 
in Capernaum, Jesus went with James and John to "the 
house of Simon and Andrew." Mark alone has "and An- 
drew." Evidently Andrew, probably a bachelor, lived with 
his brother Peter's family. Peter delicately includes An- 
drew as copartner in the house. But Jesus is here for dinner, 
like our Sunday dinner after church, and Peter's mother-in- 
law is ill of fever, probably a sudden attack. "And straight- 
way they tell him of her," Mark notes with his love for the 
historical present and with the vivid narrative of Peter in his 
mind. Mark drops back into the past tense, but preserves 
the picturesque details which he remembers from Peter's 
story: "He came and took her by the hand and raised her 
up," just like the loving Physician that Jesus was. We see 
Jesus standing by the bedside and tenderly taking the hand 
of the sick woman. That evening, when the sun did set, 
Mark says that a great crowd of sick folk came. They had 
heard of the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue that 



44 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

morning, and then of the cure of Peter's mother-in-law. So 
here they come with all sorts (ttoikiAcus, variegated like many 
colors) of diseases. "And all the city was gathered together 
at the door/' Mark says. Probably Jesus stood in the door 
and healed them as they passed by, a wondering throng. It 
was Peter's door, and he probably stood proudly near Jesus 
as he healed the moving procession. It is easy to see why 
Peter should have mentioned "the door." Next morning 
"a great while before day" (Mark has it) Jesus rose up and 
went out from Peter's house, probably not without Peter's 
observing it and wondering about it. Jesus went to "a desert 
place and there prayed" (^poo^x 6 ™? imperfect tense) along 
time, kept on praying, was still praying when Peter "found 
him." For Peter had the crowds on his hands when day came 
and did not know what to do with them. Not yet had Peter 
begun to heal the sick. So "Simon and they that were with 
him followed after him" till they "found him." Peter led a 
search party for Jesus in the early dawn and found him at 
prayer. Mark uses a very striking word for "followed after" 
(KareStcofev). It means pursue, to rush down upon as in a 
chase for game. Paul uses the simple verb (Slwku)) twice 
of his passionate pursuit of Christ his goal (Philippians 3:12, 
14) . Probably Peter, in telling the incident, said : " We rushed 
(KareStco^a/xei/) out of the house after Jesus," unless he told it in 
Aramaic. If so, then this is Mark's translation of Peter's 
vivid description. Mark feels the touch of life in his style 
and goes on with the historical present: "And say unto him, 
All are seeking thee" (preserving here Peter's own words in 
the direct discourse). 

Not all the incidents in Mark's Gospel are as closely linked 
with Peter's own life as the one above, but many others reveal 
the same traits of the eyewitness who is telling what he has 
seen with his own eyes. The healing of the paralytic let down 
through the roof is a case in point. Mark says, "It was 
noised that he was in the house," possibly Peter's house again. 
At any rate, we catch Peter's quick eyes in the narrative of 



peter's influence on mark's gospel 45 

Mark. The crowd was so great "that there was no longer 
room for them, no, not even about the door." The other 
time the crowd passed on by the door, but here they stood 
and listened to Jesus and blocked the door. Besides, that 
was a local crowd from Capernaum, while this crowd came 
"out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem" 
(Luke 5:17). Through this press and jam "they come [his- 
torical present again] bringing unto him a man sick of the 
palsy, borne of four" (alone in Mark). All this Peter's eye 
took in. What were the men to do? "They could not come 
nigh unto him for the crowd." They evidently climbed up the 
outside stairway to the flat roof, carrying the man as they 
went. Then "they uncovered the roof where he was," 
right over Jesus. "And when they had broken it up (dug 
up the tiles), they let down the bed whereon the sick of the 
palsy lay." It was a dramatic moment, and the courage 
and faith of these four men at once caught the attention of 
Jesus, who turned and said: "Son, thy sins are forgiven." 
This Jesus said without healing the palsied man. Perhaps 
his palsy was due to sin on the man's part. But this claim of 
power to forgive sins, as if Jesus were God, gave the Pharisees 
present a jolt. Mark says, "But there were certain of the 
scribes sitting there," in a bunch, off to one side. Peter no- 
ticed them and the quick interchange of glances between 
them at this " blasphemous " claim of Jesus. They "reasoned 
within themselves," but Jesus read their hearts. Peter and 
all of them felt the tenseness of the situation. It w T as electric, 
and Peter never forgot it. Jesus, "perceiving in his spirit," 
Mark says, that the Pharisees were thus reasoning about 
him, proceeds to heal the man to prove the truth of his claim 
to power to forgive sins: "But that ye may know that the 
Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to 
the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy 
bed, and go into thy house." The parenthesis is in a curious 
place, right in the middle of the sentence, and occurs in the 
same place in Matthew and Luke, obviously taken from 



46 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Mark. But why did Mark put it there? Probably Peter 
did it in his preaching. "He says to the sick of the palsy" 
is something like our "says he," which in conversation is 
thrown in almost anywhere. The man got up and "went 
forth before them all." The crowd in amazement glorified 
God: "We never saw it on this fashion." It is hardly possible 
to find a livelier picture than Mark has here drawn. 

So we might go on, if we had space and time, to other scenes 
in Mark's Gospel. In Capernaum, "when he was in the 
house" (Mark 9:33) again, probably Peter's house still, 
Jesus took a little child and "set him in the midst," "taking 
him in his arms" (9:36). Tradition has it that it was Peter's 
own child who was thus used to rebuke the jealousy of the 
Twelve. One is tempted to linger over many like details in 
Mark's Gospel that reveal the eye of Peter, like the deep sigh 
of Jesus (8:12), the look of love cast upon the rich young ruler 
(10:21), the indignation of Christ (10:14), the amazement and 
fear of the disciples at the expression of Jesus (10:33), the 
sudden spring of Bartimaeus as he flung away his garment and 
followed Jesus (10:50), seeing the fig tree afar off (11:13), 
Peter's recalling the incident next day (11:21). 

We see, then, that there is ample reason for the sober con- 
clusion of modern scholarship that in Mark's Gospel we are 
dealing primarily with Peter's interpretation of Christ after 
his reception of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is the en- 
lightened and understanding Peter whom Mark reports, 
and whose message is thus passed on to all the ages. It is 
quite possible that Mark made notes of Peter's preaching 
from time to time, beginning at an early date, and using this 
and other data for the final book which we possess. The proof 
for the influence of Peter on Mark's Gospel rests on good evi- 
dence and is amply confirmed by the phenomena in the 
Gospel itself. 



CHAPTER V 

THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 1 

"And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that 
were sick, and them that were possessed with demons. And all the city 
was gathered together at the door." Mark 1:32-3. 

1. The Miraculous Still in Mark, — For a while Mark's 
Gospel had quite a vogue with certain critics who hoped by 
means of it to get rid of the Johannine Christ and the Paul- 
ine Christ. In Mark we have the " Historical Jesus" instead 
of the "Theological Christ." 2 But the issue is now seen to 
be quite otherwise. Pfleiderer confesses it: 

"On the other hand, it must not be overlooked that even 
this oldest Gospel-writer is guided by a decided apologetic 
purpose in the selection and manipulation of his material. 
He wrote for Heathen-Christians and wished to awaken or 
confirm the conviction that despite the rejection by the 
Jews, Jesus of Nazareth was proven to be the Christ and the 
Son of God by wonders and signs of every kind, especially 
by the wonders of baptism, transfiguration, and resurrection, 
that his victorious struggle against the Jewish priestly and 
liturgical service erected a new Temple beyond the senses 
in the congregation of Christ-believers in the place of the 
old one of the senses, and that by the blood which he had 
shed for many, he established a new covenant to take the 
place of the old covenant of the law." 3 

Here Pfleiderer has correctly presented the purpose and 
method of Mark's Gospel, though he himself has no sympa- 

1 The Biblical World (Chicago), May, 1918. 

2 Cf. J. Estlin Carpenter, The Historical Jesus and the Theological Christ, 

3 Christian Origins, transl., 1906, p. 219. 

47 



48 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

thy with that purpose. 1 He notes that Mark is free from 
the stories of the birth of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke, 
"religious legends of no historical value," 2 but even Mark 
gives "the miraculous event of the messianic sanctification 
of Jesus by a celestial voice and the descent of the Spirit in 
the shape of a dove" which "is self-evidently not history, 
but legend." 3 

2. Jesus Himself the Chief Miracle. — It is clear, therefore, 
that we have not reached solid ground with critics like 
Pfleiderer when we get back of John and Paul, back of Luke 
and Matthew, to Mark and Q (the Logia of Jesus). These 
earliest sources of our knowledge of Jesus are vitiated 
for them by the presence of the miraculous element in the 
life of Jesus. The only way to get at the facts about Jesus, 
according to Pfleiderer and Schmiedel, is to drop all the 
supernatural and the miraculous and to construct our pic- 
ture of Jesus out of the remnant. Schmiedel curtly dis- 
misses the deity of Christ as impossible, since he was man, 
and such a union in one person is impossible. 4 Weinel says, 
"From the Gospels we must seek the human being." Bousset 
in his Jesus holds that Jesus never transcends the purely 
human and never presents himself as the object of faith. 
M. Jones files this complaint against the liberal Christology 
that "it draws a portrait of Jesus which does not overstep 
the limits of the human, and yet claims for this conception 
of the ideal man the very extremes of religious value, and 
sets him up as an object of religious worship." 5 That is 
profoundly true. Jones adds this pregnant sentence: "It 
has frankly broken with orthodoxy and its miraculous 
Christ, and yet retains for him a central and unique position 
in relation to humanity." 

The first and foremost miraculous element in the Gospel 

1 Christian Origins transl., 1906, p. 217. 

2 Ibid., p. 83. Ubid. 
4 "Gospels," Encyclopcedia Biblica. 

6 The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, 1914, p. 21. 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT W MARK'S GOSPEL 49 

of Mark is Jesus himself. The very headline of the Gospel 
is "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God" (1:1). Some manuscripts omit "the Son of God/' but 
Pfleiderer is quite right in his contention that this Gospel 
means to prove Jesus to be the Son of God as truly as the 
Fourth Gospel does. Jesus is received thus and makes this 
claim. "Of the supernatural, other-worldly claims of Jesus 
of Nazareth there can be no question, and there would have 
been none, but for a small circle of pedants who were anxious 
to retain the name and privilege of Christian while rejecting 
every element that gave the Faith its power." 1 This super- 
natural Christ is in Mark's Gospel. The Spirit comes upon 
him as a dove at his baptism (1:10), the Father addresses 
him as his Son (1:11), the angels minister to him in his 
temptation (1:13), he is transfigured on the mountain and 
talks with Moses and Elijah and the Father again addresses 
him as his Son (9:2-7), he affirms to the High Priest that he 
is the Son of the Blessed (14:61/.), he rises from the grave 
in proof of his claims to be the Son of God (16:6), and in the 
disputed close of the Gospel (16:9-20) there is additional 
proof of Christ's resurrection and ascension. 

The miracles wrought by Jesus come in this atmosphere 
and have to be considered as natural expressions of the 
divine energy possessed by Jesus. It is idle to strip away 
the miracles and retain the teachings. The two are so inter- 
woven in Mark's Gospel that nothing of real value would 
remain. We have to face therefore in this earliest of our 
Gospels precisely the same problem that confronts us in 
John's Gospel, the credibility of the narratives with the 
miraculous element in them. It will not do to say that the 
age was credulous and that men were predisposed to accept 
Jesus as divine. The Gospels themselves reveal precisely 
the opposite situation. Jesus wrought and taught in the 
midst of a keenly critical atmosphere with all the ecclesi- 
astical leaders hostile to him, and with his own disciples 
1 Figgis, Civilization at the Cross-Roads, p. 146. 



50 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

utterly unable to grasp the spiritual aspect of his mission 
and the promise of his own resurrection. They were so 
skeptical on this point that it required repeated manifesta- 
tions to convince them of the reality of his resurrection. 
This is the great miracle of the Gospels, then, Jesus himself. 
Once credit the fact of his deity, the rest follows naturally. 
And there is no other way to take Mark's Gospel. 

3. Evolution and Miracle. — It comes back at last to our 
idea of God. J. Wendland * argues that without a belief in 
miracles we cannot conceive of a real, living God. We may 
think of an absentee God, or of a pantheistic universe, but 
not of a personal God who reigns in his world. The scientific 
objection to miracle has lost much of its force. The world is 
now seen to be, not static, but in a constant state of change. 
Theistic evolution "is not less but more favorable to the belief 
in miracles. It is not a finished machine, but a growing or- 
ganism, that the world appears." 2 One may or may not 
accept the theory of theistic evolution. Atheistic evolution, 
of course, denies the existence of God and tries to explain 
everything in terms of materialism. But outside of HaeckePs 
Riddle of the Universe few modern scientists go to that ex- 
treme. Matthew Arnold's dictum that miracles do not 
happen fails to satisfy scientists like Sir Oliver Lodge, 3 who 
finds that life transcends while combining with and con- 
trolling physical forces. Even Huxley with his agnosticism 
refused to deny the possibility of miracles. 4 "The root ques- 
tion or outstanding controversy between science and faith 
rests upon two distinct conceptions of the universe." 6 The 
one is that of a material universe absolutely sufficient in itself, 
and completely furnished for its origination and career. The 

1 Miracles and Christianity. 

2 Garvie, "Miracles," Hastings' One Volume Bible Dictionary. 

3 Life and Matter, p. 198. 

4 Science and Christian Tradition. 

5 Sir Oliver Lodge, Hibbert Journal, October, 1902. Dr. B. B. Warfield 
(Counterfeit Miracles, 19 18) admits that miracles do not happen now and 
claims that they have not happened since the apostolic age. 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 5 1 

other is that of a physical universe, open to and dominated by 
a spiritual universe. We must make our choice, therefore, 
between these two conceptions before we come to the study 
of Mark's Gospel. No one to-day talks about violation of the 
laws of nature by miracle. We ourselves overcome the law of 
gravity by climbing, and now by flying in the air, but the 
law of gravity operates all the time. We overcome it by 
force of will. Surely God has his own personal will at all 
times, and is himself superior to all the laws that he has laid 
down for his universe. 

4. The Number of the Miracles in Mark. — Without further 
apology, therefore, we can come to Mark's Gospel and note 
the miracles wrought by Jesus. They are usually given as 
eighteen, but it all depends on what we consider a miracle. 
We note the demoniac in the synagogue in Capernaum 
(1:23-27), Peter's mother-in-law (1:30), the leper (1:40-45), 
the paralytic (2 :i-i2), the man with a withered hand (3 :i-6), 
stilling the tempest (4:35-41), the Gadarene demoniac 
(5:1-20), the woman with an issue of blood (5:25-34), raising 
of Jairus' daughter (5 :2i-24, 35-43), feeding the five thousand 
(6:31-44), walking on the sea (4:45-52), the daughter of 
the Syro-Phcenician woman (7:24-30), the deaf and dumb 
man (7:31-37), feeding the four thousand (8:1-9), ^ e blind 
man at Bethsaida — Julias (8:22-26), the deaf and dumb 
demoniac and epileptic (9:14-29), blind Bartimaeus (10: 
46-52), the withering of the fig tree (11:12-14, 20-25), an d 
the cleansing of the temple (11:15-18). There are nineteen 
in this list, which counts the cleansing of the temple as a 
miracle, as T. H. Wright does in Hastings' Dictionary of 
Christ and the Gospels (article "Miracles"). Leaving that 
out we have eighteen. 

But this list is by no means complete, for in Mark we have 
a number of general descriptions of a great many miracles 
wrought by Jesus. There is absolutely no means of telling 
how many miracles were performed by Jesus. They prob- 
ably ran up into many thousands. "And he healed many 



52 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many de- 
mons " (i -.34). " And he went into their synagogues through- 
out all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons" (1:39). 
"Lest they should throng him: for he had healed many; 
insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him 
that they might touch him" (3:9/.). "And the scribes that 
came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, 
By the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons" 
(3:22). "And he could do there no mighty work, save that 
he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them" 
(6:5). "And ran about that whole region and began to carry 
about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard 
he w T as. And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into 
cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the market- 
places, and besought him that they might touch if it were but 
the border of his garment: and as many as touched were made 
whole" (6:55/.). One had only to let his imagination work 
a little to see the vast scale of this work of healing on the part 
of Jesus. One may note in passing also the work done by 
the apostles on this tour of Galilee: "And they cast out many 
demons and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed 
them" (6:13). If one will take out of Mark's Gospel all the 
miracles wrought by Jesus and every mention of the mirac- 
ulous or the supernatural, he will have only a mutilated 
fragment. Wright tries it for the first three chapters of 
Mark just to show what a bare skeleton is left. "In most 
of the reports the action of Jesus is so interwoven with un- 
mistakably authentic words that the two elements cannot be 
separated." x It is clear, therefore, that in Mark's, as in 
John's Gospel (20:30/.), a selection has been made of represen- 
tative miracles without any idea of exhaustiveness. 

5. Kinds of Miracles. — The common division of Christ's 

miracles is into miracles on nature, miracles on man, and 

miracles on the spirit world. But there is no sharp line of 

cleavage. "Nature" with Christ covers all realms. He is at 

1 Bruce, "Jesus," Encyclopedia Biblica. 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 53 

home everywhere. Human nature is a part of nature. The 
spirit world is also a part of God's world. Jesus is as much at 
home in his mastery of wind and wave as in healing a blind 
man. He expels the demons with the same ease with which 
he makes the loaves and fishes multiply for the five thousand 
and then for the four thousand. He walks on the sea and 
withers the fig tree at a word. He raises the dead and attacks 
with uniform success all sorts of diseases. We get a very 
little way in understanding Christ's power by any analysis 
of the land of miracles wrought. Some were miracles of 
creative power, some of Providence. Some were miracles 
of personal faith, some of intercession, some of compassion, 
as those on the sabbath day and raising the dead. 

It is easier for modern men to understand some of Christ's 
cures than others. The cases of nervous disorder are now 
better understood because we know more about the influence 
of the mind on the body than we once did. But if these cures 
seem to us more credible than was once the case, we are not 
logically justified in repudiating the rest, as Harnack does, 
who will not believe that "a stormy sea was stilled by a 
word." The rather we should be constrained to believe what 
we cannot explain, since so much has become plainer. The 
Duke of Argyll 1 pertinently suggests that God has laws un- 
known to us. They operate regardless of our ignorance of 
them. Instance electricity, the atom, radium, and other 
discoveries that are revolutionary to us. 

6. Miracle and Fact. — We must always remember that the 
miracles of Jesus did not seem miraculous or unusual to him. 
The most real thing in his earthly fife was his fellowship with 
his Father. The Fourth Gospel makes this perfectly plain 
(cf. John, ch. 5), but it comes out in Mark's Gospel also 
(1:1, 35; 9:7; 13:32). Jesus is here seen as a citizen of two 
worlds. He is the Son of man and the Son of God. He ap- 
proaches human sin and sickness with the heart of the Be- 
loved Physician that he is. but with the skill and power of the 
1 Reign of Law, p. 16. 



54 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Father whose Son he is. He is thus able to make an unerring 
diagnosis and to touch the springs of life to drive away the 
germs of disease. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, 
and Jesus releases in men the forces of life that win the vic- 
tory in the wonderful fight going on in all of us for life or 
death. The miracles of Jesus are consonant with his loving 
heart of pity and tenderness. "If it be a revelation of grace, 
the miracles also must be gracious." l 

So then we must not draw a line between miracle and fact. 
A hundred years ago the aeroplane would have seemed a 
miracle. A railroad train in Gaul would have frightened 
Julius Caesar and his legions. "A miracle is on one side of it 
not a fact of this world, but of the invisible world." 2 But it 
becomes a part of this world when it has taken place. A fact 
is a fact whether we comprehend it or not. Hume thought 
that he had disposed of miracles by saying that they could 
not be proved. But men do the most astounding things. 
An engineer proved conclusively that a steamship could never 
cross the Atlantic Ocean, because it could not carry coal 
enough to get across. But the steamship went on across all 
the same. Nothing is impossible with God, nothing that is 
worth while, that is good, that appeals to God's heart. He 
has the power to do what he wills to do. That is the end of 
the whole matter. 

7. The Key to Miracle. — Sanday 3 considers it proved " that 
miracles were really performed by Christ," but holds that 
our problem to-day is "the difficulty of exactly correlating 
and harmonizing the ideas of the twentieth century with those 
of the first." That is undoubtedly true, but the solution may 
not be quite what Sanday suggests. "We may lay it down 
as most probable that there is somewhere in the nature of 
things a possible adjustment of the facts historically verified 
with a reasonably interpreted philosophy of nature." Pos- 

1 Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, p. 290. 

2 Mozley, Miracles, p. 102. 

3 "Miracles," Standard Bible Dictionary. 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 55 

sibly so, for this is a cautious statement according to San- 
day's habit. But we maintain that the credibility of the 
miracles of Jesus does not depend upon our being able to 
square them with the current philosophy of nature which 
we may hold, a constantly changing theory. But Sanday 
is wholly correct in his view that " the key to miracles" lies in 
the personality of God. If there are latent possibilities in 
man, who can say what God can or cannot do? If Christ is 
both God and man, we cannot properly deny to him the 
power of God. 

8. A Non-Miraculous Gospel. — The miracles of Jesus will 
continue to be attacked, as by Thompson, 1 but there are 
modern defenders, like Illingworth 2 and Ballard, 3 who know 
how to interpret modern thought in harmony with the law 
and will of God. It is true that to-day more emphasis is laid 
upon the spiritual and ethical content of the Gospels than 
upon the miracles and the supernatural attestation of the 
message. 4 But it is not true that we can give up the miracu- 
lous element in Mark or any of the Gospels and have anything 
left that is worth while. We should have mere scraps of 
narrative with disjointed sayings, and a purely human Jesus 
who was one of the most mistaken of men; a teacher full of 
hallucinations about himself; a miracle-monger like Simon 
Magus, not the Wonder- Worker of Mark's Gospel; a dis- 
appointed and misguided leader of a forlorn hope, not the 
Saviour of the world who gave his life a ransom for many 
(Mark 10:45); a teacher out of touch with modern life, not 
the star of hope for a sin-stricken race. 

9. The Renaissance of Wonder. 5 — The day has passed 
when serious scholars make scoff at wonder. Modern 
science has taught us much of the marvels of nature. Some 

1 Miracles in the New Testament, 191 1. 

2 Gospel Miracles, 19 15. 

3 Miracles of Unbelief, 1904. 

4 G. A. Gordon, Religion and Miracle, 1909. 

The Convention Teacher (Nashville), June, 19 18. 



56 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

years ago President E. M. Poteat made a striking address at 
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on "The Re- 
naissance of Wonder." Three Greek words are used in 
the Gospels to describe the works of Jesus. They are 
wonders (re/mra), powers (Svvdfi&si), signs (o-^jaeia), and all 
are used together in Acts 2:22. The word for wonder 
occurs in Mark only in 13:22, and in connection with the 
signs wrought by false prophets who seek to lead astray the 
very elect. But the idea of wonder runs all through the Gospel 
of Mark. It takes all of these words to convey the full con- 
ception of a miracle of Jesus as a cause for wonder, as a 
work wrought by divine power, and as a sign of the truth 
of Christ's claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God. 

Mere wonder does not take us very far if it stops there, but 
we do not make much headway in any direction without it. 
The child is constantly learning, and greets the new knowledge 
of each day with open-eyed astonishment and delight. The 
first miracle pictured in Mark 1 121-28 occurs in the synagogue 
at Capernaum. There the people "were astonished at his 
teaching," at the force and authority of it, "for he taught 
them as having authority and not as the scribes," and at the 
novelty of it. "What is this? A new teaching!" But the big- 
gest sensation on that day was that the unclean spirit went 
out of a man at the command of Jesus. As a result, "the 
report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the 
region of Galilee round about." It requires very little imagi- 
nation to see how excitement spread into every direction as 
the outcome of this day's work. Something happened that 
day "at church" quite out of the ordinary. 

Amazement in the synagogue is followed by the healing 
of Peter's mother-in-law (1:29-31). The two miracles are 
the occasion of a wonderful sunset scene at the door of the 
dwelling that very evening (1:32-34). Mark's language is 
picturesque, probably as Peter told it in his preaching. "At 
even, when the sun did set" (possibly a glorious sunset) "all 
the city was gathered together at the door" (right in front 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 57 

of the door). Jesus apparently stood in the doorway and 
healed the passing crowds of sick folks and hushed the tur- 
bulent demoniacs. It was the hour of hope for all the stricken 
while the Great Physician was on hand. It is easy to see the 
stir in Capernaum at the close of this memorable Sabbath 
day there, the first of many like it. There Jesus stood with no 
hospital, no medicine, no surgical instruments, but with 
power to give life. 

But the excitement was too great, and the strain was 
severe on Jesus (1:35). Our Lord felt the need of his 
Father's help, and spent much of the night in prayer. 
What a reproach to us all in our self-complacent and easy- 
going way of doing Christian work! Peter probably told this 
also, for Mark's record is that "Simon and they that were 
with him pursued" Jesus in hot haste with the cry: "All are 
seeking thee." So Jesus "went into their synagogues through- 
out all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons" (1:39). 
We can never quite comprehend the glory of this first dawn 
of Christ's power in Galilee. He healed a leper (1:40-45) 
and strictly charged him: "Say thou nothing to any man." 
But, man-like, "he went out and began to publish it much, 
and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could 
no more openly enter a city, but was without in desert places," 
seeking, forsooth, to hide from the excitable populace. But 
Mark naively adds: "And they came to him from every 
quarter." Those were great days on earth. 

One day Jesus was back in Capernaum and "it was noised 
that he was in the house" (or at home). That news was 
enough for the crowd which was soon so great "that there 
was no longer room, no, not even about the door" (2:2). 
Thus Mark introduces us to his description of the healing 
of the paralytic let down through the tile roof which was dug 
up (2 :i-i 2) . It is a graphic story. Jesus defied the Pharisees 
and healed the man to prove that he had power on earth to 
forgive sins, and so was God. The man "arose and straight- 
way took up the bed, and went forth before them all," Mark 



58 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

says with characteristic love of detail, "insomuch that they 
were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it 
on this fashion.'' They could not get used to the wonder of 
Christ in the presence of sin and sickness and sorrow. 

The anger of the Pharisees takes a practical turn when the 
man with the withered hand is healed right before their 
very eyes in the synagogue and on the Sabbath day (3: 1-6). 
"They watched him," for the Pharisees had now come to 
expect that Jesus could do his miracles of healing when he 
wished, and in defiance of their customs. They wished a 
further charge against him. Jesus was deliberate enough 
and "looked round about on them with anger." The holy 
anger of Christ clashed with the murderous wrath of the 
Pharisees who "went out and straightway took counsel 
against him, how they might destroy him." 

The fame of Jesus drew "a great multitude from Galilee," 
and "from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, 
and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon" who came 
"hearing what great things he did" (3:7-12). The crowd 
pressed upon him so that he had a little boat to wait on him 
by the sea for escape. The people were eager to " touch him " 
as they passed and be healed. The demoniacs continued to 
hail Jesus as the Son of God. 

Two explanations of Christ's power are given by Mark; 
one by "his friends" that "he is beside himself" (3:20/.), and 
probably including his mother and brothers (3:31-35), for 
the moment even Mary not understanding his conduct; 
the other by his enemies, the Pharisees, who say that Jesus 
casts out demons by Beelzebub (3:22-30). But both classes 
admit the reality of his cures. The extraordinary man is 
often accused of being peculiar. 

Quite in contrast with this turbulent atmosphere is the 
picture of Jesus asleep in the boat with his head on the 
cushions, while the disciples are frightened to death by the 
fierceness of the storm. They have the Lord of Nature with 
them in the boat, and fear that all are sinking. When Christ 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 59 

shows that he is Master of wind and waves, they fear ex- 
ceedingly. Even the apostles are not used to the many- 
sided man of Galilee whom they follow. 

The scene changes quickly in Mark like a kaleidoscopic 
panorama. The wild man at Khersa (5:1-20) is one of the 
weirdest in history. Huxley ridiculed it as "the Gadarene 
Pig Affair." 

There are difficulties in the narrative as to the loss of 
property and demons in hogs, but we are concerned here 
only with the tremendous effect of the cure of this terrible 
man of the tombs and of the mountains. The terror of the 
keepers of the swine, when they saw the herd of hogs rush 
down headlong into the sea and drown, was communicated 
to the neighbors who "began to beseech" Jesus "to depart 
from their borders." Jesus did depart, as he has probably 
done since, from many another region to its ruin. But "all 
men marveled" at the story of the now calm and rational 
ex-demoniac. 

The nervous strain on Jesus is shown by the case of the 
woman with an issue of blood (5:25-34). "And straightway 
Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from 
him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and 
said, "Who touched me?" There is the touch of nature 
that makes the whole world kin. What teacher or preacher 
has not felt power go out of him? It has gone out if the 
hearer has gotten any blessing. This "gone" feeling ex- 
plains "Blue Mondays" and lack of "liberty," as the old 
preachers used to say. Yes, and one can do no more till he 
has a fresh supply of divine energy. Even Jesus felt the 
strain of the work of healing and preaching. But he was 
not too worn to soothe and to bless this fearing and trem- 
bling woman. 

The raising of Jairus' young daughter (5:35-43) made a 
profound impression. "They laughed him to scorn" when 
Jesus went on up to the room to restore her. Here at least 
was a point where the power of Jesus stopped. So the crowd 



60 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

argued he might keep men from dying, he could not bring 
back the dead. But all the same Jesus drove death away. 
"xAud they were amazed straightway with a great amaze- 
ment/' 

And yet there was a limit to the power of Christ. It was 
unbelief, and Jesus met this obstacle at Nazareth (6:1-6). 
"He marveled because of their unbelief." What a com- 
mentary on the community in Nazareth, where Jesus had 
spent his youth. "And he could there do no mighty work, 
save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed 
them. Perhaps here we see the explanation of many a failure 
in church work to-day. 

The third formal campaign through Galilee made a great 
impression, and even Herod Antipas at Tiberias was stirred 
intensely by it. He saw in Christ the ghost of John the 
Baptist whom he had beheaded (6:14-29). This guilty 
conscience haunted him as is often the case when the Spirit 
of God does mighty works among men. Men's hearts are 
then searched to the depths. 

Twice Christ fed the crowds east of the Sea of Galilee. 
Once it was near Bethsaida- Julias (6:30-44), and over in 
Decapolis (8:1-10). Jesus himself alluded afterward to 
both incidents (8:14-21). Each time a tremendous sensation 
was the result, though the disciples failed to understand the 
lessons taught by these acted parables (8:19/.). 

Mark tells of the fear of the disciples when they saw Jesus 
coming to them walking on the water (6:45-52), "for they 
all saw him, and were troubled." Even after Jesus was in 
the boat, "they were sore amazed in themselves." On the 
plain of Gennesaret the people crowd around Jesus to touch 
the hem of his garment (6:53-56). 

One of the neatest turns in M ark's Gospel is the story of 
the Greek woman's wit in repartee and strong faith that 
won the blessing of Christ for her little Gentile daughter 
(7:24-30). 

The picturesque style of Mark comes out well in the case 



THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN MARK'S GOSPEL 6l 

of the blind man who was healed by degrees, and at first 
saw men as trees walking, and then, after a second touch 
from Christ, clearly. Jesus did not hesitate to touch him 
a second time (8:22-26). 

The failure of the disciples to heal the epileptic boy almost 
destroyed the father's faith in Jesus (9:9-29). The disciples 
failed from lack of prayer as we so often do now\ We do not 
even have faith equal to a grain of mustard seed when we 
go up against '"this mountain." 

One can see and hear poor blind Bartimseus on the Jericho 
road as he cries out to Jesus of Nazareth who is passing by 
(10:46-52). In grateful joy he sprang up and followed 
Jesus with the rest on toward Jerusalem. 

The cursing of the withered fig tree (11:12-14, 20-26) 
puzzled the disciples, for the tree was not responsible for its 
having leaves before figs. But this also is an acted parable, 
an object lesson for them and for us. We must not advertise 
what we do not have. " By their fruits ye shall know them." 
The wonder of Jesus is not explained. He is himself greater 
than all his miracles, Son of God and Son of man. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL * 

"Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ." Mark 
8:29. 

1. Mark Responsible for Our Picture of Christ. — It is emi- 
nently worth our while to look at the picture of Christ in 
Mark's Gospel. If John's Gospel is the latest, Mark's is 
the earliest. It is generally held that Mark is later than 
Q and may have used Q, but we do not actually have Q 
save as a matter of critical analysis. However, we do possess 
Mark. Not all the critics yet agree that our canonical Mark 
was written by John Mark. The Ur-Marcus theory still 
has a following, as, for instance, Wendling, who postulates 
three " Marks." Others, like Bacon, favor the Redactor 
theory involving a considerable revision of the original 
Mark (by John Mark). The purpose of this Chapter is not 
to go again into a discussion of Mark's Gospel and the Synoptic 
Problem. We may let the question rest for our purposes 
now with the curt conclusion of Pfleiderer: " Nothing can 
be urged against the Church tradition that this Gospel was 
written by John Mark." 2 We are, however, concerned 
with what Pfleiderer goes on to add: "Such a man might 
well have been the author of the Gospel which unites the 
Jesus of the Palestinian tradition, the energetic hero of a 
Jewish reform movement, with the Christ of the Pauline 
theology, the suffering hero of a mystical world-salvation, 
and thus paved the way which was finished two generations 

1 The Constructive Quarterly (New York), June, 19 18. 

2 Christian Origins, transl., 1906, p. 222. 

62 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 63 

later in the Gospel of John." So then, according to Pfleid- 
erer, Mark is chiefly responsible for giving permanent form 
to the theologizing about Jesus which made a divine Christ 
out of him. We have passed through the " Jesus or Christ" 
controversy. 1 But the alternative will not stand sober 
criticism. Jesus is the Christ of Mark, of Matthew, of Luke, 
of John, of Paul, of Peter, of James, of Jude, of Hebrews. 
We went through the "Back to Christ" cry to get away 
from the Pauline Christ and the Johannine Christ. The 
Synoptic Christ was what was wanted. But, lo, he is the 
same in outline as the Johannine and the Pauline Christ. 
It is now clear that Paul did not " invent" Christ out of the 
Jesus of history. Criticism has discovered Q, the main 
source of the discourses of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, used 
on a par with Mark's Gospel by them, possibly used even 
by Mark. But the picture of Jesus in Q is the same in fun- 
damental outlines as that in the Synoptic Gospels. Schweit- 
zer taunts modern German criticism with pitching over- 
board everything save "only a torn and tattered Gospel of 
Mark," 2 and then being dissatisfied with the picture of 
Jesus left in the fragments. The "liberal Jesus," he argues, 
"has given place to the Germanic Jesus." After finding 
Mark as the basis of Matthew and Luke these critics have 
proceeded to modernize Mark and have brought about "the 
downfall of the Gospel of Mark as an historical source" to 
their own satisfaction. Where then is the "historical Jesus" 
which was promised us? "The Germanic spirit is making 
a Jesus after its own likeness" and Schweitzer concludes: 
"This professedly historical Jesus is not a purely historical 
figure, but one w T hich has been artificially transplanted into 
history." That indictment stands, though one need not 
follow Schweitzer in his " eschatological " vagaries. 

2. The Note of Reality. — Pfleiderer does not mean to admit 
that Mark's picture of Christ is veracious. The distinction 

1 Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 

2 The Quest of the Historical Jesus, transl., 1910, p. 307. 



64 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

between Mark, the other two synoptists, and John is only 
relative. But he holds "that the Christ of the first three 
Gospels appears as a real man and not yet as a God become 
man." * "A comparison with the other Gospels reveals that 
Mark represents an earlier stage of apologetic authorship 
and hence a comparatively clearer and more naive presenta- 
tion of tradition" (p. 217). Clearly, then, there is ample 
justification for a close look at Mark's picture of Jesus. But 
Bacon considers Mark "the most Pauline of the Synoptic 
Gospels" and holds that the dominant idea of the whole 
Gospel is "to produce belief in his person as Son of God." 2 
This may be admitted without in the least discrediting 
the historical worth of Mark's Gospel. There is small use 
for any man to write a book unless he has a serious pur- 
pose in view. It is true, as Pfleiderer charges, that all the 
Gospels have an apologetic value. The same thing is true 
of every scientific paper that supports a thesis. 

But while this is true, Mark's Christ has the note of reality. 
It is true that Peter's preaching lies behind the Second Gospel 
though the book is not a mere translation of Peter's Aramaic 
discourses. Mark has made a real book, but without de- 
stroying the freshness of Peter's picture of Jesus. Peter 
made Mark see Jesus with great vividness and power and 
he has preserved the startling boldness of that image. Mark 
himself was not a theologian with a touch of philosophy like 
John or a scholarly historian like Luke or a man of affairs 
with his tabulated lists like Matthew. He took his task to 
be rather that of the reporter of the great apostle, Simon Peter, 
the glowing preacher whose warmth and color greatly moved 
Mark's heart and life as well as thousands of other lives. The 
reports of Peter's discourses in Acts 2 and 10 make it easy 
to believe that Peter's hearers in Rome and elsewhere be- 
sought Mark to write out his recollections of these wonderful 
addresses. If we wish to get a clear idea of the way that the 

1 Christian Origins, p. 10. 

2 Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, p. xxvii. 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 65 

early disciples portrayed Jesus in their sermons we may ob- 
tain that conception in Mark's Gospel. It is the preacher's 
picture of Christ, the preacher who knew Jesus by blessed 
experience and who was trying to win others to the service 
of Christ. Paul reminded the Galatians, "before whose eyes 
Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified" (Gal. 3:1), of his 
own picturesque preaching of Christ. 

3. Mark's Purpose in this Gospel. — We have in Mark's 
Gospel, thus, our earliest picture of Christ in any adequate 
sense, for Q is only a torso. It is of supreme importance for 
us ail to look at Mark's Christ with clear eyes and open 
hearts and honest minds. It is held by some that the open- 
ing words of this Gospel (1 :i) constitute a mere headline and 
were not a part of the original Mark. But "whether the 
present headline of the Gospel is due to St. Mark or to an 
early editor, it admirably expresses the idea of the book. 
It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." l It is thus 
not exactly "The Life of Christ according to St. Mark" as 
Bennett has it in his excellent discussion (1907). Mark does 
not undertake to give us the Life of Christ, but the message 
of Jesus in its essential features and enough of his claims and 
ac's to prove that Jesus is in reality "the Christ, the Son of 
Goo," though not all the manuscripts have "the Son of God." 
We must not be misled into thinking that Mark has given 
us or meant to give us a collection of the words of Jesus. 
What he has done for us is to present Christ in action both as 
Worker and as Teacher. We see Jesus as the man of power 
and it is the power of God and not of a mere man. Mark has 
little theology in his book in the sense of theological or philo- 
sophical terms, and yet all the fundamental doctrines con- 
cerning the Person and Work of Christ are here. He does not 
conceal his own opinion about Jesus, though there is no 
abstract discussion as one finds in a modern treatise like 
Fairbairn's The Place of Christ in Modem Theology (1893), 
Forsyth's The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909), Mack- 
1 Swete, Commentary j p. lxxxiv. 



66 i STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

intosh's The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (191 2), or 
Moffatt's Theology of the Gospels (19 12). It will not do to 
depreciate Mark's method as wholly lacking in merit because 
he is more objective and concrete. The peculiar vitality of 
this Gospel is partly due to this very fact. Mark's picture 
of Christ stirs the mind to intense activity and is creative 
of the truest theology. 

4. Limitations in Mark's Gospel.— The limitations of 
Mark's Gospel confront us at once. There is nothing about 
the Birth and Infancy of Jesus. What conclusion shall we 
draw from this fact? The argument from silence is notori- 
ously precarious. The only just conclusion is that Mark 
used the material at hand that suited his purpose. He omits 
also the first year of the public ministry after the Baptism 
and Temptation, if we accept, as I do, John's Gospel as re- 
liable history. We may suppose that Mark followed the 
general plan of Peter's discourses with chief emphasis on the 
Galilean ministry and Passion Week which Peter employed 
in Caesarea (Acts 10:34-43). It is quite gratuitous to go on 
and say that " the narratives in Matthew and Luke are re- 
ligious legends of no historical value" 1 because Mark is 
silent. Pfleiderer's judgment is its own standard in deciding 
between " history" and " legend" for, he says, " though there 
is no certain knowledge possible, yet it may be considered 
probable that Jesus was baptized by John." A man who can 
say that cannot complain if his opinion about the Virgin 
Birth is discounted. Mark simply has nothing to say on that 
subject and cannot be properly quoted as hostile to that view 
of Christ's birth. 

5. The Messianic Consciousness. — Mark presents Jesus as 
"the Baptist's successor." 2 He is the "herald of the King- 
dom, taking up the work of John." 3 This is true, but Mark 
does not make John the chief figure and Jesus the secondary 
follower. The attitude of John toward Jesus is distinctly 
that of the Forerunner whose whole mission was absorbed in 

1 Pfleiderer, Christian Origins , p. 83. 2 Swete. 3 Gould, 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 67 

the work of the Messiah. " There cometh after me he that is 
mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy 
to stoop down and unloose" (Mark. 1:7). John stood alone, 
but he pointed to the really great One whose very 7 baptism 
will surpass that of John (1:8). It will not do, therefore, to 
say that in Mark the Messiahship of Jesus is a development 
and not claimed at the start as in John's Gospel. There is 
more truth in Maclean's idea x that in Jerusalem the issue w r as 
joined at once between Christ and the Pharisees while in 
Galilee Jesus held the matter in abeyance as long as possible. 
But this is not to say that Jesus himself was at first unaware 
of the real nature of his person and mission or that the dis- 
ciples did not at once take him as Messiah as John's Gospel 
represents them as doing. The disciples did not grasp the 
spiritual character of the Messianic kingdom, not till Pente- 
cost came with the Spirit's illumination, for even after the 
Resurrection of Jesus they still clung to the Pharisaic con- 
ception of a political kingdom (Acts 1 :6). Jesus did test the 
disciples concerning their knowledge of his person toward the 
close of the summer of withdrawal from Galilee (Mark 8 '.27 jj.) 
but it is probable that he wished to know now whether they 
still believed in him as the Messiah after all that they had 
seen and heard. Even then he charged them not to tell 
what Peter had so nobly said. Least of all is it proper to say 
that Mark's Gospel treats Jesus simply as a man who was 
carried away by the enthusiasm of the multitude and by his 
own excitement to make abnormal claims for himself at the 
close of his career. That is not the way the Second Gospel 
portrays Jesus. Gould does say in his discussion of "The 
Person and Principles of Jesus in Mark's Gospel": 2 "We are 
coming now to the close of Jesus' ministry, and his method 
has not yet led him to any declaration of himself nor of his 
mission. It would almost seem as if he had no consciousness 
of a mission of any definite sort, so content has he been to 

1 Mark's Gospel, Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 

2 Commentary, p. xxv. 



68 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

let things merely happen, great as has been his use of these 
happenings." I do not so read Mark's Gospel. 

Let us see. In the " headline" (1:1) Jesus is termed the 
" Christ, the Son of God." John the Baptist foretold the 
coming One as near and as the expected Great One, though 
Mark does not say that he applied to him the word " Mes- 
siah" (1:2-8). But we must not be slaves of a word. The 
idea of the Messiah is in the context. At the baptism of 
Jesus (1:9-11) by the Baptist the Spirit descends on him 
as a dove and the Father addresses Jesus as "my beloved 
Son," and this act of baptism calls forth the approval of the 
Father. The Baptist hears God's voice salute Jesus as the 
Son of God. This language must mean the Messiah and 
presents the highest conception of that office. The doctrine 
of the Trinity is really here (Father, Son, Spirit). It will 
not do to say that Jesus was not yet conscious of his mission 
and of his peculiar relation to God. Thus at the very be- 
ginning of our earliest Gospel all the essential elements in 
the Person and Work of Christ confront us. His humanity 
is here and his deity is here. The Messianic consciousness 
of Jesus is inevitably involved. This great event made the 
Baptist certain that he had made no mistake in his identi- 
fication of Jesus as the Messiah. There are no disciples of 
Jesus as yet. 

Mark does not give the story of the Temptation of Jesus 
by Satan where the deity of Jesus is subtly challenged by 
the devil and where his humanity is strongly emphasized by 
the weakness of hunger. But the fact of the Temptation is 
given by Mark with a touch of loneliness added by the 
mention of "the wild beasts" as his companions and the 
comfort of the angels at the end (1:12/.). Certainly in 
Matthew and Luke Jesus stands pitted against the prince 
of this world who at once perceives that he is dealing with 
the Son of God and Jesus is fully conscious of his own per- 
sonality and of the vast issues at stake in th,e conflict. There 
is nothing in the Gospel of John that more thoroughly pic- 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 69 

tures the deity of Christ than the Temptation where his 
humanity is so powerfully attacked by Satan. 

When the demons hail Jesus as "the Holy One of God" 
(1:24) Jesus makes no disclaimer, but commands silence, 
for such testimony will not help his cause. The restraint of 
Jesus in Galilee does not, therefore, mean doubt on his own 
part about his Messiahship or ignorance on the part of the 
early disciples, but only that for prudential reasons Jesus 
did not make such formal and public claims. The public in 
Galilee were too fanatical to permit it without precipitating 
a crisis. The intensity of the popular excitement is manifest 
in the early Galilean ministry. "They were all amazed" 
(Mark 1:27), "all the city was gathered together at the 
door" (1:33), "all are seeking thee" (1:37), "Jesus could 
no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert 
places; and they came to him from every quarter " (1:45), 
to go no further. It is evident that everywhere people are 
hailing Jesus as the Messiah proclaimed by the Baptist, 
though Jesus avoids the use of the term. 

6. Son of God and Son of Man. — The Pharisees from 
Jerusalem were quick to see the inevitable implication of the 
claims and works of Jesus. When Jesus said to the paralytic 
let down through the tile roof: "Son, thy sins are forgiven 
thee" (Mark 2:5), they were instant with the accusation in 
their hearts: "He blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but 
one, even God?" (2:7). In this tense atmosphere Jesus 
proceeds to heal the man to prove his power or authority to 
forgive sins and so his equality with God. "But that ye 
may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to 
forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto 
thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (2:10/.). 
There is no possible misunderstanding the import of this 
language. The use of the phrase "the Son of man" instead 
of " Messiah" probably kept the populace from clearly 
understanding the Messianic claim that Jesus made and 
robbed the Pharisees of a technical charge of blasphemy. 



70 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

But some of them probably knew that the phrase already 
had a Messianic sense in their apocalyptic writings and all 
of them knew that Jesus really claimed practical equality 
with God and, worst of all, defied them and proved his 
power by healing the paralytic to the amazement of the 
crowd who " glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this 
fashion" (2:12). 

In the first two chapters, therefore, we meet the use of 
"Son of God" and "Son of man" which aptly depict the 
deity and the humanity of Jesus. Tremendous efforts have 
been made to empty them of any real meaning. But in 
Mark's Gospel "the Son of God" means more than just any 
man, since all men are sons of God in one sense. " Son of 
man" can be a translation of the Aramaic "bamasha" a 
man, any man, but that idea is puerile and jejune in most 
of the passages in the mouth of Jesus. Christ is not in 2:10 
showing that "any man" has the power to forgive sins, but 
that He has that authority. We have in Mark no definition 
of the phrase "the Son of Man," but it is manifestly Mes- 
sianic and representative. The reality of Christ's humanity 
is clearly stated by it, but a great deal more. He is, besides, 
the representative man of the race and the ideal man. By 
means of this term, of which Jesus is fond, he is able to lay 
claim to the Messiahship without using the word "Messiah" 
which would give instant offense to the rulers and which 
would at once arouse the passion of the people. How much 
the twelve apostles understood at first by the language of 
Jesus we are not told. But we must remember that they 
also heard him called "the Son of God" and, as John's 
Gospel shows, had special teaching from Jesus concerning 
his Messiahship. 

Jesus early foresaw and foretold his death according to 
Mark's Gospel, for he spoke of the fasting after the death 
of the bridegroom (2:20). His claim to lordship of the Sab- 
bath (2:27) probably astonished the disciples as much as it 
angered Christ's enemies. The unclean spirits had the 



THE CHRIST OT MARK'S GOSPEL 7 1 

habit of making the demoniacs fall down before Jesus, cry- 
ing: "Thou art the Son of God" (3:11). Some impression 
was probably made on the minds of some by this undesirable 
testimony. 

7. Adverse Opinions. — Mark does not hesitate to present 
the adverse opinions about Jesus. "His friends'' (3:21) 
went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside 
himself." This was the charitable construction placed on 
Christ's conduct by his own "brothers" (3:31) when they 
heard the bitter accusation of the Pharisees from Jerusalem 
that Jesus was in league with the devil (3:22). Apparently 
for the moment even Mary, the Mother of Jesus, felt that 
the strain had been too great upon Jesus. She came with 
her sons, "calling him," to take him home. This dark scene 
is characteristic of Mark's method. He puts in the light and 
shadow of the actual life of Jesus, not because he is in doubt, 
but simply as an artist true to the life. Over against this 
depreciation of Jesus put the exceeding fear of the disciples 
in the boat: "Who then is this, that even the wind and the 
sea obey him?" (4:41). They had doubtless long before this 
taken Jesus as the Messiah, but they had no well-defined 
Christology apart from the Pharisaic environment. They 
were in confusion over the apparent contradiction between 
the sleeping and drowning Jesus and the Master of wind 
and wave. Soon the disciples see the wild man of the tombs 
run and fall down and worship Jesus as he screams: "What 
have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High 
God? "(5:7). Huxley's ridicule of the " Gadarene Pig Affair " 
in his debate with Gladstone has not disposed of the weird 
power of this scene. Peter seems to have been greatly 
moved by it, for Mark's narrative is wonderfully vivid and 
dramatic. 

The contrasts in Christ's person in Mark's Gospel appear 
with great clearness in the sensitiveness of Christ to the loss 
of energy as power went out from him at the touch of his 
garment by the sick woman (5:30/.), and in the tender mas- 



72 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

tery over death in the house of Jairus where in the presence 
of a small group Jesus restores the child to life. Mark has 
kept the very Aramaic words that Jesus used to the little girl, 
Talitha cumi (5:41). Peter never forgot them as for the first 
time he saw Jesus conqueror of death. 

The picture of Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth (6:1-6) 
reveals the limitations in the work of the Master. His old 
friends and neighbors look upon Jesus as a wonder since he 
sprang from the midst of them. He was to them still "the 
carpenter" and not the Messiah. They felt that there must 
be some mistake about his gifts and graces since they had 
discovered none of them while he was with them. Many 
another man has been a stumbling-block to his neighbors, 
for the prophet is not without honor save in his own coun- 
try. The lack of faith limited the power of Jesus to work 
miracles. People differed in their interpretation of Jesus then 
as now; but all had to form some opinion about him. The 
third Galilean campaign attracted the attention of Herod 
Antipas, whose guilty fears made him think that Jesus was 
John the Baptist come to life again. Others thought that 
Jesus was Elijah or another of the prophets. Some felt that 
he was indeed the Messiah, as the Baptist had said. Mark 
shows his fidelity as an historian in letting us see that Jesus 
did not convince all that he was the Son of God, the Son of 
man. He seemed to the most only a wonderful man. There 
was no doubt of his humanity. His deity was evident enough 
for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear, but his deity 
was to be held in harmony with his humanity however little 
we may be able to explain the union. Mark does not under- 
take to explain; he states the facts as he got hold of them and 
lets the facts speak for themselves. 

8. The Disciples Puzzled.— The disciples themselves were 
repeatedly puzzled by the conduct of Jesus. Mark shows this 
with sheer simplicity and naivete. Jesus was weary with the 
apostles and sought rest, but rallied and taught the eager 
crowds. He revealed himself as Lord of nature as he multi- 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 73 

plied the loaves and the fishes for the multitude (6:30-44), 
and then walked upon the water to the frightened disciples 
(6:45-52). Even more "they were sore amazed in them- 
selves" as they tried to understand Jesus and his works. 
It was not a simple matter to comprehend Jesus Christ though 
these men saw him day by day. Their eyes "were holden" 
we read, holden by their preconceived ideas about the Mes- 
siah and by their own theological interpretations of Jesus. 

The patience of Jesus was sorely tried by the slow progress 
of the disciples in grasping the real significance of his teaching 
about himself. They stumbled in simple matters like the 
use of leaven for teaching (8:15), but they did hold on to the 
great truth that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (8:27-30), 
however imperfect their views of the Messiah were. This, at 
least, was something to be grateful for, and Jesus charged 
the apostles not to tell others as yet what they knew. The 
masses were fickle and volatile and would only take Jesus 
as a political Messiah in accord with Pharisaic theology 
as had already been made perfectly plain. Mark does not 
enlarge upon Peter's great confession as Matthew does, but 
shows that Peter was the spokesman on this important oc- 
casion. Perhaps Peter had not discoursed upon the words of 
Jesus to him at this eventful juncture. But Peter, for Mark 
has it (8:31-33), did tell of Christ's calling him "Satan" 
for his presumptuous advice. The mystery of Jesus appeared 
to grow as he discussed his own death after the staunch 
avowal of faith in his Messiahship and divine sonship. In 
his rebuke of Peter Jesus proceeded to set forth the true 
philosophy of life and death. This was applicable to the Son 
of man most of all as he faced his own Cross, and yet this 
"Son of man" was to come "in the glory of his Father with 
the holy angels " (8 :3s) . He will come to judge those who are 
ashamed of him here and to bless those who confess him. This 
was no ordinary "Son of man" (bamasha) who was himself 
the test of every man's life and destiny, Saviour and Judge of 
all. It is "his Father's" glory, so that he is the Son of God, 



74 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

and yet he will judge mankind as "the Son of man" whose 
ideal he is. Mark is fully conscious that he is not presenting 
the portraiture of a mere Jewish Prophet or Galilean Teacher. 
He is the greatest of all teachers, the supreme prophet of the 
ages, the model for human life, the brother of the race. But 
he was far more than all this. Mark makes it evident that 
this "more" is what makes all the rest possible and offers 
hope to men. 

9. Christ* s Conception of His Death. — The scene on the 
Mount of Transfiguration (9:2-13) reveals Jesus in his glory 
as he talks with Moses and Elijah, representatives of law 
and prophecy, not on a par with them, but as their superior. 
He is addressed by the Father's voice as "my beloved Son" 
while he alludes to himself in his talk with the three disciples 
as "the Son of man." Mark represents the death of Christ 
as the theme of the high converse with Moses and Elijah. 
Jesus had failed to make the disciples comprehend the import 
of his atoning death as they continued to fail in this supreme 
matter. To the disciples it was incongruous and incom- 
prehensible that the Messiah should die. They had as yet no 
room for the suffering Messiah in their theology. They could 
see how he was prophet and king, but not how he was priest. 
And yet the priestly aspect of Christ's work is the chief thing 
as he conceived it. His sacrificial death was the real purpose 
of his earthly life. He came to give life to men, but this gift 
of life was made possible by his own death. With this spirit 
Christ approached his own death. He had to drink this cup 
and to receive the baptism of death (10:38). "For the Son 
of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and 
to give his life a ransom for many" (10:45). Jesus did not 
often allude to this deepest aspect of his work, for the dis- 
ciples could not become reconciled to the fact of his death. 
They were poorly prepared as yet for the interpretation of that 
death. But it is significant that in Mark's Gospel the atone- 
ment finds a real place. Evidently it had this place in Peter's 
preaching (cf. Acts 2:38; 10:43) as in his Epistles (1 Peter 



THE CHRIST OF MARK'S GOSPEL 75 

1:18/.). As Jesus went on to Jerusalem to meet his hour, he 
saw that his death was to be a " ransom for many/' The 
papyri have this word (lutron) as the price paid for freeing 
a slave. So Jesus looked upon his death. When he instituted 
the supper after the last passover meal, he said: "This is my 
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many "(14*24). 
This view is no afterthought with Jesus, no last resort of a 
disappointed man who sought refuge in death after defeat in 
life. It is not the later theologizing of Peter or of Mark. 
It is Peter's recollection of the words of Jesus which Peter 
frankly confessed that he did not at the time understand. 
Nothing is more true to life in Mark's Gospel than his re- 
tention of the confession and dullness of the apostles con- 
cerning the teaching of Jesus about his personal work. The 
development in this Gospel, as in John's Gospel, is chiefly 
in the revelation of Jesus to these awakening men in the face 
of the growing hostility of his enemies. The atmospheric en- 
vironment was all against the true perception of the nature 
of the Messiah whom they loved and adored. The mystery 
deepened as they entered further with Christ into the shadow 
of the Cross. Their hearts beat back and forth as they shared 
the shifting scenes of the closing days. The Triumphal Entry 
was a public proclamation of the Messiahship of Jesus. The 
Jerusalem authorities so interpreted it. And Jesus meant 
them to so understand it. The people hailed Jesus with 
utter joy as "he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (11:9). 
And yet Jesus knew that he was not the political Messiah 
that they took him to be, knew also that to let it pass that 
way would give his enemies the charge against him that they 
wished. From the standpoint of the Sanhedrin he was a 
blasphemer for claiming to be the Messiah. From the stand- 
point of Rome he could be charged with high treason in setting 
himself up as a rival king to Caesar. Jesus foresaw all this 
and yet made his defiance on purpose. Thus he would force 
the hand of his enemies and bring matters to a crisis and reveal 
their guilt, and so he would meet his hour as the Lamb of God 



76 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

offered on the Cross for human sin. The sinlessness of Christ 
is taught in Mark and the voluntariness of his death. The 
dignity of the great Tragedy is here. Jesus is Master of the 
Temple and orders the money-changers out (11:15). In the 
parable of the husbandman and the vineyard Jesus shows that 
he is the King's Son to the dismay of his enemies. He applies 
to himself the words of the Psalmist (118:22/.) that the stone 
which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner 
(Mark 12:10). He shows that David's son is also David's 
Lord with clear implication concerning his own humanity and 
deity as the Messiah (12 135-37), to the anger of the rulers and 
the joy of the common people. 

10. Victor on the Cross. — In the eschatological discourse 
(ch. 13), the so-called "Little Apocalypse," in the very verse 
(32) wherein he admits his ignorance of the time of his second 
coming and of the world's judgment, he affirms his peculiar 
sonship ("the Son," "the Father") as in John's Gospel. 
Almost in the hour of his death he asserts his lordship and 
victory over all his foes in the end. "And then shall they 
see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and 
glory" (13:26). He never seems more completely master 
of his own destiny than when he is the victim of human hate. 
He is Lord of the world that crucifies him. He is adjudged 
guilty of blasphemy and of treason, though free from all sin, 
and will some day come as Judge of his judges and of all men. 
Jesus is conscious that he is laying down his life for the world's 
sin, but he by no means holds those guiltless who compass 
his death. "For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written 
of him; but woe unto that man through whom the Son of 
man is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had not been 
born" (14:21). "The hour is come; behold, the Son of man 
is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (14:41). 

In the hour of weakness in the Garden of Gethsemane, 
when the soul of Jesus shrank from the cup of woe, he yet 
was fully conscious that he was God's Son and began his 
heart-rending plea and absolute submission to the Father's 



THE CHRIST OF MARKS GOSPEL 77 

will with the tender words " Abba, Father" (14:36), blending 
the Aramaic of his childhood and the Greek, as Paul in Ro- 
mans 8:15; Gal. 4:6. 

In the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin Jesus on 
oath confesses that he is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" 
(14:61), when he knew that this confession meant his death. 
But Jesus would not renounce his true personality to save 
his mortal life. In this very moment Jesus claims also to be 
"the Son of man" w T hom Caiaphas and his other judges will 
one day see "sitting at the right hand of Power," as King 
by the side of the Father on the Throne, "and coming with 
the clouds of heaven" (14:62). This defiance of Caiaphas 
was ample proof to him of blasphemy. But it shows beyond 
controversy that Mark gives us the high conception of the 
Person of Christ. 

The claims of Jesus were flung in his teeth as he hung on 
the Cross. His enemies defied "the Christ, the King of 
Israel" to come down from the Cross (15:32). In mockery 
they unconsciously stated the great truth about his whole 
work: "He saved others; himself he cannot save" (15:31). 

In the cry of agony, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?" we seem to see the surprise of Jesus that his 
Father should allow him to walk this path alone even to pay 
the debt of the sin of the race and to make redemption pos- 
sible. But his very death impressed a Roman centurion that 
he was surely God's Son (15:39). The death of Jesus was no 
swoon, but actual death, and the disciples were all in despair 
in this hour of gloom. 

The closing verses of our Mark (16:9-20) are not found in 
the oldest documents. We cannot, therefore, appeal to them 
with confidence in proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. But 
in Mark 16:1-8 the fact of the Resurrection is made plain. 
The women find the tomb empty but a young man in a white 
robe proclaims that Jesus is risen from the dead and has sent 
a special message to "his disciples and Peter" (16:7). The 
Gospel closes with Peter reinstated in Christ's confidence and 



78 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

with Jesus as the Risen Lord who will carry on and carry out 
his great programme for the world's redemption. 

It is true that in Mark's Gospel we possess a mere sketch 
of the life and work, person and principles of Jesus. And yet 
it is also true that in this sketch we have the main features 
of the Christ of Matthew, Luke, and John. " These and sim- 
ilar sayings contain an almost complete outline of Christian 
soteriology and eschatology, and assert the principles of the 
new life which the Lord taught and exemplified and which 
His Spirit was to produce in the life of the future Church." x 

The marvel of it all is the fact that it is done in such short 
compass, with such clarity, with such vividness (almost 
vivacity), and with such power. The stamp of reality is in 
this story. To be sure, the supernatural is here and Jesus 
is offered to us as a supernatural Person without apology. 
But the day is gone when the Gospels can be refused a hearing 
because of the presence of the supernatural in them. If God 
exists, it is unhistorical and unscientific to ignore him. The 
Christ of Mark is the Christ of the believer in all the ages. 
He asks that his power over the life be put to the test of 
experience before one decides that he is not the Son of God. 

There is pathos in the fact that the friends of Jesus did not 
see at first the true import of his claims. His enemies saw 
the peril to their theology and power in the revolutionary 
reforms with his Messianic assumptions. Mark has presented 
the graphic story with dramatic power, but there is no mis- 
taking his meaning. He proves the deity of Jesus in his own 
way as conclusively as the Gospel of John does. Rev. W. R. 
Whateley 2 discusses " Christ as the Object of Faith in the 
Synoptic Gospels." He says: "The synoptic evidence, in 
fact, is really more cogent than that derived from the Fourth 
Gospel." 

1 Swete, Commentary, p. lxxxix. 

2 The Expositor (London), December, 19 17. 



CHAPTER VII 

JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS * 

"Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." 
Mark 1:17. 

Modern preachers are greatly interested in the first por- 
trayal of the greatest preacher of all time, Jesus of Nazareth. 
He is the model for all preachers. He is, to be sure, much 
more than this. He is Son of God, Son of Man, Lord and 
Saviour, and all of this he is in Mark's Gospel. But he was a 
preacher and his message and work as a preacher are pre- 
sented with great clearness and power in this gospel of action. 
Mark has no formal discussion of this aspect of Christ's 
work, but we see him in action as a preacher. We see the 
whole task of the modern preacher reflected in this picture 
of Christ drawn by Mark. It is not the homiletics of Jesus 
that we are primarily concerned with in this Chapter, though 
that is interesting and we catch glimpses of it now and then. 
Rev. A. R. Bond has a good book on The Master Preacher 
in which he analyzes the homiletical methods of Jesus, 
and Dr. James Stalker has some exceedingly helpful words 
in his Imago Christi and The Preacher and His Models. Jesus 
is so many-sided in his human nature that it is good to look 
at him sometimes from this one angle of vision. Let us see, 
then, how Mark describes Jesus the Preacher. 

1. Pictured by a Preacher. — Mark's portraiture of Christ 
comes mainly from the reminiscences of Simon Peter as 
nearly all modern scholars agree. The testimony of Papias 
and of various other early writers is explicit on this point, as 

1 The Expositor (Cleveland), March, 1918. 
79 



8o STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

we have seen. There are many proofs of the work of an eye- 
witness in the Gospel of Mark. Peter was most of all a 
preacher. He lacked the intellectual strength and grasp of 
Paul, but he was a man of quick insight, a practical turn, a 
warm heart, and sympathy. Mark was Peter's disciple and 
interpreter and heard Peter preach Jesus with all his fervor 
and freshness. The fidelity of Mark is shown by the wonder- 
ful skill with which he has preserved the many nuances in 
Peter's glowing oratory. The Christ of Mark is Christ as 
Peter knows him by blessed fellowship and under the tutelage 
of the Holy Spirit. Peter did not hide his own weaknesses 
and shortcomings in his preaching and Mark has kept them 
in his story. They give life and color to the narrative. 

2. Mightier than the Baptist. — The very first thing in Mark's 
Gospel is his bold sketch of John the Baptist "who baptized 
in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance 
unto remission of sins" (1:4). This picturesque preacher of 
righteousness summoned the Jewish nation to repentance 
and treated them as Gentiles by demanding that they sub- 
mit to baptism, confessing their sins. It was sensational 
enough to draw all Jerusalem and all Judea to the wilderness 
by the Jordan. He preached as a herald (iKrjpvo-o-a/) and 
kept it up (imperfect tense) with the startling announce- 
ment: " There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, 
the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and 
unloose" (1:7). John said this at the very acme of his pop- 
ularity, when all men held him to be a prophet (11:32) and 
some wondered if he were not himself the Messiah. John 
was a mighty preacher as the ages testify. The few pages 
in the Gospels that give John's message justify the praise 
of Jesus and the enthusiasm of the multitudes. John is one 
of the outstanding preachers of all history. But he (see chap- 
ters II and X of my John the Loyal, 191 1), felt that his chief 
glory was to be the forerunner of the Great Preacher. John's 
word is " stronger" (laxvpoTepos) . It was not an anaemic 
Messiah that he foresaw, but a man of transcendent energy 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 8 1 

and power, who " shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit " (1:8). 
Did Christ fulfill John's forecast? The first time that he 
saw him he beheld the Holy Spirit come upon him like a 
dove and heard the voice from heaven greet him as God's 
Beloved Son (1:10/.). That was an introduction in keeping 
with John's vision. 

3. Tempted like other Preachers, — Preachers know that they 
are not exempt from temptation. Some may imagine that 
they are immune from the darts of the devil, but they are soon 
undeceived. Judas at last fell a victim to the wiles of the 
devil and Peter was in dire peril for " Satan asked to have you, 
that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for 
thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke 22 13 1/.). The complacency 
of Peter was shared by all the Twelve, but the result with 
Peter was very sad. In the Agony in Gethsemane Jesus re- 
curred to his anxiety: "Pray that ye enter not into tempta- 
tion" (Luke 22:40). Jesus was feeling again the devil's 
power as at the beginning of his ministry when the Spirit 
drove him into the wilderness when he was tempted by Satan. 
Mark's language is almost daring. He does not say that the 
spirit "drove" (iKfidXXa) Jesus into temptation (1:12), 
but it is a bold statement of the submission of Jesus to the 
leading of the Holy Spirit. Matthew does say: "Then was 
Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of 
the devil" (4:1). Certainly Jesus was conscious of what was 
ahead of him and apparently had a natural reluctance to meet 
the great adversary in mortal combat. Mark adds that Jesus 
"was with the wild beasts" (1:13), a weird picture of the 
lonely struggle with the tempter. 'The angels ministered 
unto him" (1:13), after the devil was vanquished Matthew 
explains (4:11). The point for all preachers here is just this: 
The devil did not spare Jesus himself. He will not hesitate 
to try his power upon each of us. It actually seems that the 
devil is particularly fond of compassing the downfall of a 
preacher. Paul warns Timothy and other preachers against 
"the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7). He sets traps for 



82 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

preachers. Jesus knew what it was to meet the devil at the 
very start and all through his ministry (Luke 4:13) to the final 
victory. 

4. Preaching the Gospel of God. — This language is Mark's 
first comment about Jesus when he "came into Galilee, 
preaching the gospel (good news) of God." (1:14). He had 
already pictured the Baptist "preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance unto remission of sins" (1:4). The new preacher 
took up the message of the Forerunner, these two Heralds 
of the Dawn being thus linked in a noble succession: "The 
time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent 
ye, and believe in the gospel" (1:15). The Baptist was al- 
ready in prison, but Jesus, undismayed, cried aloud with the 
same bugle-note in Galilee. Preachers through all the ages 
have been thrown into prison and put to death, but that has 
not stopped the mouths of other preachers. The moral 
courage of the preacher places him above kings and Caesars 
if he has the message of God. John had it, Jesus had it, 
Paul had it. Each in turn forfeited his life for the truth that 
he preached, but that Truth has transformed the world. 
Newspapers and books have not destroyed the power of the 
preacher of the gospel of God. Spurgeon is dead — has been 
for more than twenty-five years — but new sermons of his are 
eagerly read by the multitude as they come from the press. 
"Believe in the gospel," Jesus said. It does matter what one 
believes and what he preaches. The message of Jesus shook 
Galilee and is shaking the world to-day like the guns in France 
and Flanders. 

5. Fishing for Fishers of Men. — The very first incident that 
Mark records in the Galilean ministry is the call of Simon and 
Andrew, James and John (1:16-20). They were fishers, and 
Zebedee, father of James and John, employed hired servants 
and seems to have been at the head of a fish company. It 
was not the first time that this group had seen Jesus, as we 
know from John's Gospel (1 134-42), but till now they had not 
definitely given up their calling as fishermen. "Come ye 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 83 

after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." 
These four laymen (business men) gave up their business, 
profitable in all probability, to follow Jesus and help him win 
men. The art of catching men for Christ is the supreme test 
of the evangelistic preacher. It has to be learned. Jesus 
undertakes to teach these fishers how to fish for men. No 
calling is comparable in dignity with this. Jesus kept his 
promise. We know something of Peter's work on the great 
Pentecostal Day and afterwards. John fished in a different 
way and wrote the wondrous spiritual Gospel that is still 
winning men to Christ. James became the first martyr 
among the Twelve. We know less of Andrew, but he was a 
man of counsel. Each had his own way of fishing for men. 
It is a part of every preacher's w T ork to find other fishers. A 
country Baptist preacher in North Carolina, Rev. Josiah 
Elliott, has led fifteen young men into the ministry. That is 
in itself a noble life-work. First he fishes among the young 
men in the churches. Some are in school, some in business, 
some in the professions. "The same commit thou to faithful 
men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). 
Paul saw the same necessity and urges it upon Timothy in his 
last Epistle. Jesus saw the need of it at the very beginning 
of his work in Galilee. It is the insistent call now upon modern 
men. The Great War revealed the alarming dearth of men 
for religious work. The fields were never so white for the 
harvest, but the laborers were lamentably few. We must 
go fishing for fishers of men. 

6. Teaching with the Note of Authority. — The first echo in 
Mark (1:22-28) of the teaching of Jesus in Galilee is the as- 
tonishment of the crowds in the synagogue. "They were as- 
tonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having au- 
thority, not as the scribes" (1:22). Jesus was both teacher 
and preacher. Every preacher ought to be a teacher. These 
two aspects of one's work are not quite the same, but both 
ought to be present though in varying proportions. Jesus is 
called teacher in the Gospels more frequently than preacher. 



84 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

He came to be known as the Teacher (the Master). Both 
head and heart enter into this work. Mere instruction with- 
out warmth and passion will not win a hearing. Mere pas- 
sion without teaching will not stick and the passion will be 
torn to tatters. Both light and heat are demanded in the 
modern teacher-preacher. Jesus passed as a "rabbi," though 
not a technical school-man. He was an irregular rabbi, but 
his message and method stood out in sharp contrast with the 
way the Pharisaic rabbis or scribes taught in the synagogues. 
Jesus was allowed the courtesy of addressing the audiences 
in the synagogues. We know from the Talmud what the 
rabbinical method of instruction was. Both in the Halachah 
(the legal rules) and in the Haggadah (the explanatory and 
anecdotal comments) the scribe was very slow to take a posi- 
tion that he could not support by quotations from other 
rabbis. His discourse was largely a string of quotations and 
lacked independence and the personal quality that gives 
charm and magnetism. Jesus was like a breeze from the hills 
in his originality, outlook, and freshness of statement. " What 
is this? A new teaching! With authority he commandeth 
even the unclean spirits and they obey him." There is little 
room to-day for the mere dogmatist, but there is still less in 
modern preaching for the spineless doubter who has no con- 
victions and no power with God or men or over demons. 
Jesus stood in the synagogue the master over the forces of 
evil and the master of men's consciences which he challenged 
to the new service for God and man. Without the note of 
authority the preacher is a helpless jelly-fish. It cannot be 
feigned. It comes only with the possession of truth and is 
the note of reality. 

7. A Healing Ministry. — The preaching of Jesus had a 
charm all its own, the spell of which is still upon the world. 
But it is probable that his healing ministry created more en- 
thusiasm and excitement than his teaching, wondrous as 
that was. Physicians there were, but they were woefully 
primitive in many of their methods and in much of their 



JESUS THE EXEilPLAR FOR PREACHERS 85 

knowledge. Medical knowledge has made great strides in 
recent years, but people are still living who can recall the 
leeches and bleeding processes of a preceding generation of 
physicians. Theology for long was literally queen of the 
sciences, for physical science was slow in getting on. The- 
ology is still queen of the sciences in importance and rejoices 
in the great progress made in the treatment of the ills of body 
and mind. Jesus is still the Great Physician of the ages, 
equally at home in the treatment of the sin-sick soul and the 
pain-racked body. People flocked to him with their ills as 
they do to our medical missionaries in China to-day. Some 
had chronic troubles like the poor woman who "had suffered 
many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she 
had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" 
(Mark 5:26). She closely resembles people to-day who go from 
one "'quack" to another, for there were "'quacks" then as 
now. Once more her hope revived, as she heard of the cures 
(real cures, this time) of the new healer. So she slipped up 
behind Jesus and touched his garment with simple faith. 
"If I but touch his garment, I shall be made whole" (5:28). 
Jesus felt power go from him as she was healed. It cost 
Christ something to heal the sick as well as to save the lost. 
Christianity has two sides to its work, the ministry to the 
soul and the ministry to the body. Jesus combined them and 
we must do the same. It does not follow that the modern 
preacher should be a physician or should be a professional 
faith-healer. Paul, the preacher, and Luke, the physician, 
worked together. So the Christian preacher and the Chris- 
tian physician should cooperate in their work for the whole 
man. Hospitals are a fit expression of the spirit of Jesus. 
Jesus did not make the cure of the body his chief task, but 
he showed mercy upon the suffering at every turn and it is an 
empty Christianity to-day that does not enter into the Red 
Cross spirit. The Cross of Jesus has a message for the soul 
and the body. 

8. Hindered by His Popularity. — Early in the Galilean 



86 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

ministry the great crowds pressed upon Jesus in such throngs 
that he felt them as a hindrance to his work. So he sought 
relief in prayer, rising long before day and going out to a 
desert place to pray, only to have Peter rush upon him with 
the cry, " All are seeking thee" (i issff-)- Time and again the 
pressure of the crowds caused Jesus to seek the woods and the 
fields and communion with the Father. " Jesus could no 
more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert 
places; and they came to him from every quarter" (1:45). 
The peril of the crowd is felt by every popular preacher. To 
be sure, there is danger in the absence of the people, danger 
of a drying up of life and a slowing down of energy unless one 
keeps himself alive to the real greatness of his task in a small 
place so that he shall do a big work in a little place which is 
far better than a little work in a big place. But many a 
preacher who has caught the ear of the crowd has lost the true 
perspective and has lived with the crowd too much. He has 
not followed the example of Jesus in going to the desert places, 
the secret places with God and nature, for spiritual renewal. 
Mother earth is good for the recuperation of the preacher's 
energy and for wholesome outlook upon the realities of life. 
It is poor economy for the busy preacher to neglect his books, 
his closet, his recreation. The crowds may upset his nerves, 
sap his energy, and rob him of his power. Then the crowds 
will leave him alone and for good. 

9. Seeking Rest and Finding Work. — This has been the 
fate of many a tired preacher who hied him to the hills and 
found rest in work instead of repose. And yet absolute rest 
is sometimes required. Jesus sought it and he made the 
Twelve try it when they came back from the strenuous cam- 
paign through Galilee. "Come ye yourselves apart into a 
desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming 
and going and they had no leisure, so much as to eat" (6:31). 
So they went off in the heat with Jesus to a desert place near 
Bethsaida- Julias where the grass was green on the mountain 
side, a lovely place for an outing with the Teacher. But the 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 87 

rest was rudely broken by the rush of the crowds round the 
lake. What was Jesus to do? He did not disappoint the mul- 
titudes, hungry for the bread of life. He had compassion 
on the people and, tired as he was, roused himself for the 
work of teaching and healing. Then they had a picnic on a 
grand scale as Jesus made the Twelve act as waiters for the 
five thousand men (what a men's meeting in the open!) be- 
sides women and children. Never mind now about this 
miracle of emergency. Jesus was equal to every occasion 
and the outcome stirred the people to the highest pitch of 
excitement. They wanted to make him king now without 
delay and to set up a kingdom independent of Rome. To 
escape from this predicament the Master sent the disciples 
home in the boat " while he himself sendeth the multitudes 
away" (6:45). Then "he departed into the mountain to 
pray," to spend most of the night alone with the Father in 
the hills. That was refreshment for his spirit and for his body. 
10. Finding Difficulty in Teaching His Students. — It is 
pathetic to see how hard it was for the twelve apostles, who 
were so close to the Master and so constantly with him, to 
learn the truth about his person and his message. They 
were at first the product of the Pharisaic environment of 
Palestine. All but Judas were from Galilee which was less 
in the grip of the rabbis than Judea. But they all, even the 
spiritual John, found it difficult to brush aside the rabbinical 
cobwebs so cunningly spun around their heads. Jesus was 
patient with them and tried many expedients as a teacher. 
He taught them in public and in private. He is himself the 
master teacher of all time and reveals all the pedagogical 
skill that other teachers gain more or less by long and labo- 
rious study. It is all spontaneous with Jesus. A greater 
than Aristotle is here, but these chosen men, the flower of 
the early days of the kingdom of God on earth, open slowly 
to the rays of the sun. Sometimes they asked Jesus what 
he meant. "And when he w T as entered into the house from 
the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable. And 



88 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?" 
(7:17/.). Jesus took them with him out of Galilee for some 
months of special training and still they failed to understand 
Christ's method. "Do ye not yet perceive, neither under- 
stand? Have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye 
not? And having ears, hear ye not? And do ye not remem- 
ber? " (8:17/.)- Every teacher can sympathize with Jesus at 
this point. And yet these men did finally come to know Jesus. 
11. Misunderstood by Some of His Friends. — It is a hard 
lot for a preacher to be unappreciated at home by those who 
ought to love him most and to know him best. Jesus had the 
love and sympathy of his mother from the first and at the 
last, for she stood by the Cross as he died, with the sword 
through her heart as Simeon had said would come to pass. 
But there was a time in the ministry of Jesus when many 
seemed to feel that the strain had become too great for her 
wondrous son. The rabbis were saying that Jesus was in 
league with Beelzebub in explanation of his undoubted 
miracles. This she knew to be utterly untrue, but it was 
humiliating to her pride to hear him so maligned. He did, 
forsooth, act strangely at times. Sometimes the multitude 
pressed upon him so that he and they "could not so much as 
eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went to lay 
hands on him; for they said, He is beside himself" (3:20/.). 
This was the charitable construction of his conduct in opposi- 
tion to the biting cynicism of the scribes (3:22). Finally 
"there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing 
without, they sent unto him, calling him" (3:31). Evidently 
they wish to take him home till he is calmer and comes to 
himself. It is not hard to imagine the agony in Mary's heart 
at this situation. The brothers probably felt a sort of supe- 
riority to Jesus and a dislike for the unpleasant notoriety 
that he was giving to the quiet Nazareth household. Some- 
times one's "friends" make apology for one by the explana- 
tion that he is a little "off" and should be excused. Few 
preachers of energy and individuality escape such "friends." 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 89 

12. Understanding Children, — But, if Jesus was misunder- 
stood by others, he himself was at one with little children. 
They are the severest critics of all, for they have no affecta- 
tions and either like you or do not like you. If a preacher 
can win and hold the children, he need not bother about the 
older people. They will at least be sure to understand his 
sermons if the children do so. Most of them will love the 
preacher because he has won their children. It seems odd 
to us to-day that the world has been so slow in appreciating 
childhood which is the real wealth of a nation. Children 
were never in the way of Jesus. Even the apostles once re- 
buked a group of mothers for bringing their little children to 
Jesus to receive his blessing (10:13). They evidently felt 
that it was a bother to Jesus to be interrupted by children, 
much as some people dislike to have children in church and, 
as a result, never have them there when they grow up. To- 
day after almost any Sunday School service one sees the great 
crowd of the pupils going home instead of to church. But 
Jesus was indignant at the disciples for such an estimate of 
his attitude toward children, urged that children be allowed 
to come to him, made "a little child " the type of the sub- 
jects of the kingdom, and took the children into his arms and 
blessed them (10:14-16). Once before Jesus took a little 
child into his arms and set it in the midst of the disciples as 
an object lesson to them in their disputes, a sort of kinder- 
garten lesson for the preachers. Jesus has created the modern 
child's world of joy and gladness and always had room in his 
heart and in his arms for them. 

13. The Test of the Greatest Preacher. — People differ greatly 
in their views of preaching and that is not wholly bad, for 
the great variety of preachers suits different classes. No 
one preacher pleases all. John the Baptist did not do it 
nor did Jesus nor did Paul. There is no one single test of 
good speaking, but there is a test for the greatness of a 
preacher's ministry. The sermon is by no means all of his 
work, important as that is. Preachers are sometimes jealous 



90 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

of each other as doctors are envious of doctors, lawyers of 
lawyers. Even the twelve apostles " disputed one with an- 
other in the way, who was the greatest" (9:34). Now the 
ambition to be great is not in itself evil any more than is the 
longing to be good. It all depends on one's notion of great- 
ness. If it is simply self-aggrandizement, then it is vanity. 
If it is self-advancement at the expense of others, it is evil. 
Jesus gave the disciples a new ideal of greatness, that of 
humility and service. "If any man would be first, he shall 
be last of all, and minister of air ' (9 13 5) . This is an absolutely 
revolutionary idea and yet it is destined to conquer the world 
in the end. It lies at the root of real patriotism, of love of 
father and mother and child, of all the Christian activities 
of the world, of missions, of Red Cross work, of the preacher's 
whole life, of the life of every child of God. 

14. The Ministry of Sympathy. — In it all Christ never lost 
the sympathetic chord that gives nobility to human effort. 
Compassed on every side by theological obscurantism and 
ecclesiastical red-tape, Jesus burst through it all. On his 
way to the crucifixion he bore his own cross like the Son of 
Man and like the Son of God. Even on the Cross Jesus 
prayed for forgiveness for those who were taking his life. 
Tragedy enters into the lives of other preachers though not 
on this scale. Broadus used to say that sympathy was the 
chief element in effective preaching. But no preacher is 
really efficient till his heart is touched with sorrows. Then 
he will know how to be a sympathetic and tender shepherd 
to the lambs that are lost in the storm, and will go after them 
and bring them back. It is the cry of the lost sheep that 
broke the heart of Christ. They are still crying on the moun- 
tains for you and for me. 

15. Courage unto Death} — No man ever displayed more 
courage than Jesus. The minister is lost who is a coward. 
The people will not respect him or hear his message. Crit- 
icism is to be expected by those who bring a new message 

1 The Christian Workers 1 Magazine (Chicago), Feb., 1918. 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 9 1 

and who attack vested interests and inherited prejudices 
and established traditions. Jesus, from the standpoint of 
the Pharisees, was an iconoclast and a dangerous revolution- 
ist whose work was subversive of all the religious traditions 
of the fathers. He early made his choice and attacked the 
current religious leaders who were responsible for the shackles 
on the people and defied them. He did this boldly and re- 
peatedly when he saw that this course led to the Cross. He 
claimed" power to forgive sins when the Pharisees accused him 
of blasphemy and healed the paralytic to prove the truth of 
his claim (2:10). He disregarded Pharisaic exclusiveness 
and associated with publicans and sinners at Levi's feast 
(2:16). He justified the disregard of the stated fasts of the 
Jews by his disciples to the disgust of the disciples of John 
now in collusion with the disciples of the Pharisees. This he 
did on the ground of the radical difference between Christian- 
ity and current Judaism. He defied Pharisaic rules about 
Sabbath observance and justified his right to interpret the 
day as the sen-ant, not the master of man (2:23-3:6). One 
of the sharpest attacks made against Christ by the Pharisees 
was because his disciples ignored their scruples by eating 
with unwashed hands (7:1-23). Jesus charged them with 
setting at naught the Word of God by the traditions of men. 
Jesus was a religious and social reformer and he struck hard 
at the abuses in his time. He hit hardest the professional 
pietists of the day whom he termed hypocrites because they 
stood in the way of the establishment of real righteousness. 
Vital religion was hindered by the dead ceremonialism all 
about him. Every evangelist feels the chill of a cold church 
life when he meets it. 

Jesus moves as Master even-where whether in the midst 
of hostile criticism from Pharisees and home-folks (3:20-35); 
or pressed by a curious and superficial crowd by the sea who 
do not know how to use their eyes and their ears and their 
minds and to whom the parabolic teaching is a closed book 
(4:1-9); or with his own disciples who struggle to apprehend 



92 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

his enigmatic sayings (4:10-34) and hopelessly flounder in 
doubt when they seem to be sinking in the storm at sea 
(4:35-41); or grappling with a legion of demons who go from 
man to swine in a mad rush to the sea with the result that 
Jesus is urged to leave that region (5:1-20) as many another 
Christian worker has been since in other spheres of influence; 
or feeling power go out of him as a poor woman touches the 
hem of his garment in the throng (5 30) ; or overcoming death 
in the home of Jairus when he takes the little girl by the hand 
and lifts her up to the amazement of all (5:41); or once more 
astonishing the people of Nazareth by his words and his won- 
ders since they could not comprehend how a man reared in 
their town could really do what Jesus apparently did (6:3). 
It has often been a mystery to people how a green boy reared 
among them could ever come to be a master workman for 
God. We are all provincial in our prejudices. 

16. An Itinerant Preacher. 1 — Jesus was constantly on the 
go during his brief ministry. He went on to " the next towns " 
(Mark 1:38), like the modern missionary evangelist. There 
was little time for study in the modern sense of that term. 
We do not think of Jesus as a bookish preacher, and yet 
his preaching astonished the people precisely by marvelous 
insight into the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures. 
He denounced the rabbis (the current preachers) for their 
slavery to tradition and ignorance of the Word of God. " Ye 
leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition 
of men" (7:8), "making void the word of God by your tradi- 
tion" (7:13). Thomson 2 thinks that Jesus was a student of 
the Jewish apocalypses. Charles believes that the teaching 
of Jesus reveals knowledge of "The Testimony of the 
Twelve Patriarchs." Be that as it may, the most strik- 
ing thing about the teaching of Jesus is its originality and 
its universality. 3 The thinking of Jesus is modern and 

1 The Christian Advocate (New York), Aug. 1, 19 18. 

2 Books which have Influenced our Lord. 

3 Cf' Johnston Ross, The Universality of Jesus, 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 93 

still far ahead of the best modern ideals in spite of its 
Palestinian environment. Isolated sayings of Jesus have 
parallels in the Talmud, but the Talmud is a dead intellec- 
tual incubus, while the words of Jesus have life and power to 
rejuvenate the world. The modern man's deepest philosophy 
is following after this itinerant Galilean preacher. Preachers 
to-day often excuse themselves from profound study on the 
plea that they are too busy. The manifold demands of a 
city pastorate preclude technical Biblical knowledge. And 
yet no sermons through the ages are comparable in pith 
and power with those of this busiest of all preachers whom 
the crowds pressed almost to suffocation. These sermons 
dropped from his lips in matchless perfection of substance and 
form. Unwasted through Jesus was, eternal Youth that he 
is, yet the multitudes sapped his vital energy as he felt power 
go out from him (5:30). Any one who has really preached 
knows what it is to be " clean gone." There can be no ef- 
fective preaching without expenditure of vital force. 

17. Christ's Method and Manner in Preaching. — Jesus used 
the conversational style as a rule. He spoke over nobody's 
head. Sometimes in the presence of great multitudes he 
spoke in an elevated tone of voice so as to be heard. "And 
he called to him the multitudes again, and said into them, 
Hear me all of you, and understand" (7:14). Every speaker 
knows what this means. Mere loudness will not carry con- 
viction, but in the presence of a great crowd one must make 
himself heard if possible so as to drive the truth home. But 
often Jesus spoke as the teacher to a smaller group gathered 
round him. In this free interplay we see Jesus in his usual 
conversational mood. It is a curious instance of development 
that our word homiletics comes from the Greek homileo, 
which means to converse. Luke uses it of the talk of the two 
disciples on the way to Emmaus as " they communed (w/aiAow) 
with each other." l Jesus was quick to notice inattention, 
and often urges closer attention. "If any man hath ears to 
1 Cf. Bond, The Master Preacher. 



94 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

hear, let him hear" (4.23). He was responsive to the chang- 
ing moods of his audience, as every orator is. Jesus not 
only had compassion (6:34) on the multitude and " began 
to teach them/' eager as they were for the bread of life, but 
he also knew when to stop and to send the multitude away 
even when they did not wish to go (6 :4s) . He had compassion 
for their physical wants also (8:2): "They will faint on the 
way; and some of them are from afar." The modern preacher 
who is utterly oblivious to the physical conditions of his 
ministry will fail to win a hearing and will lose his crowd. 

Mark has the advantage of Peter's keen eyes and tells us 
much about the looks and gestures of Jesus. "And when he 
had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved 
at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, 
Stretch forth they hand" (3 15). One can almost see the flash 
of the eye as Jesus swept round the synagogue that look 
of scorn that set the Pharisees and Herodians wild with rage. 
When his mother and brothers came to take Jesus home, 
"looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, 
Behold my mother and my brethren " (3 134) . When the rich 
young ruler came to Jesus he "looking upon him loved him" 
(10:21). "And Jesus looked round about and saith" (10:23), 
"Jesus looking upon them, saith" (10:27). Mark gives this 
vivid picture of the strain written on the face of Jesus: "And 
Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and 
they that followed were afraid" (io^). 1 

It is easy to see in Mark that Jesus used repartee, wit, 
humor, irony, sarcasm, invective, question, appeal, rebuke. 
It is all life where Jesus is. He let his hearers talk back. The 
electric spark flashes and strikes fire. It is not necessary to 
think that Jesus was a student of Greek rhetoric or of the 
rabbinical dialectic. But it is not hard to find examples of 
the diatribe, of the Socratic method of questioning, of the 
rabbinical refinement of thought. What we find in Christ's 
teaching and preaching is not the rules of the schools or of the 
1 Cf. Law, The Emotions of Jesus, 



JESUS THE EXEMPLAR FOR PREACHERS 95 

books, but the appeal to the laws of human thought. We are 
in the presence of one who is master of the mind of man, 
and plays upon it with the precision of a master musician. 1 
Jesus encouraged questions. The people asked him "why," 
"what," and "how." But he often gave question for ques- 
tion, as in 2.18/. and in 2:24/. Often Jesus would challenge 
attention at the start by a question, as in 3 14. People learned 
to expect something when he put out these sharp questions. 
An example of irony is in 7 :g : " Full well do ye reject the com- 
mandment of God, that ye may keep your traditions." It 
is jejune not to see the point here. The playful wit of Jesus 
appears in his bantering repartee with the Syrophcenician 
woman, who brightly took up the word of Christ about " the 
little dogs" (Kwdpta): "Yea, Lord; even the dogs under the 
table eat of the children's crumbs 77 (7:28). "For this saying 
go thy way." Did not Jesus smile graciously upon her as 
he spoke? 2 Sometimes Jesus has to rebuke his own dis- 
ciples even sharply, as in 7:18: "Are ye so without under- 
standing also?" Even to Peter he had once to say: "Get 
thee behind me, Satan" (8:33). To James and John, Christ 
has to reply: "Ye know not what ye ask. " 

Jesus met current problems in his preaching, but only to 
show the eternal value of spiritual realities. In an unspiritual 
age he struck the spiritual note and held to it, though his 
own disciples failed to understand his conception of the King- 
dom even after his resurrection (Acts 1:6). His own age 
crucified him because he would not fall in with the current 
theology of the rabbis. They killed the Prince of Life, who 
brought life and immortality to light. 

The illustrations of Jesus surpass those of all other preach- 
ers. The rabbis used parables before Jesus taught. We have 
many of them in the Talmud, but they do not measure up to 
the standards set by Jesus. Even the disciples were puzzled 
by the parables of Christ, and asked him in private to in- 

1 Cf. Hitchcock, The Psychology of Jesus. 

2 Cf. Wunkhaus, Der Humor Jesu. 



96 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

terpret them (4:10-34). They served various purposes. 
They caught flagging attention and held it by the power of 
the story. They sent a shaft where the truth could else not 
go. They concealed the message from those not able and not 
worthy to hear it, while revealing to the spiritually minded 
the mystery of the Kingdom (4:10). The point of the story 
would stick with the parable and be understood later if not at 
the moment. Christ's parables are the perfection of story- 
telling and linger in the mind with the charm of sweet music 
or lash the conscience like whips. The parables of Jesus 
always illustrate. But this subject calls for special treat- 
ment in the next chapter. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE PARABLES OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 1 
"And he taught them many things in parables." Mark 4:2. 

1. Parables Less Prominent than Miracles in Mark. — Mark's 
Gospel is noted for its report of miracles rather than for 
its record of parables. The deeds of Jesus rather than his 
words confront us. And yet the teaching of Christ is by 
no means neglected. It is here alone that "Believe in the 
gospel" (Mark 1:15) is preserved. Papias expressly says 
that Mark "wrote accurately what he recalled of the things 
said or done by Christ/' what he recalled of Peter's preach- 
ing about Jesus. In a word, in Mark's Gospel we see Christ 
in action, but "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel 
of God." (1:14). Jesus in the Second Gospel is not a mere 
miracle worker. He is distinctly and at once set forth as the 
Preacher and Teacher. In the synagogue in Capernaum 
"they were astonished at his teaching; for he taught them 
as having authority, and not as the scribes" (1:22). The 
teaching of Jesus was as sensational as his miracles. "And 
they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among 
themselves, saying, What is this? A new teaching!" (1 127). 

2. Definition of Parable.— No element of Christ's teaching 
was more bewildering to his hearers than his use of parables. 
The Jewish rabbis made copious use of parables, but they lack 
the stamp of originality that belongs to those of Jesus. The 
parables of the rabbis, as we have them in the Talmud, are 
more or less perfunctory and common-place, not to say ar- 
tificial, unnatural, and fantastic. 2 They do not haunt the 

1 The Expositor (Cleveland), May, 19 iS. 

2 Cf. Trench's Notes on the Parables. 

97 



98 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

mind and linger in the memory in the way that those of Jesus 
do. The beauty of his parables charms us even when we do 
not at once see the point of the story. As a rule the point is 
clear, but sometimes it is purposely obscure for the confusion 
of the enemies of Christ. An illustration is designed to throw 
light on the point under discussion. The parable is one 
form of illustration. It takes a familiar fact in nature and 
puts it beside the less familiar moral or spiritual truth. The 
comparison clarifies the truth. The parable may be extended 
narrative or crisp epigrammatic metaphor. It may be 
formal comparison or implied comparison. It is unlike the 
fable which is grotesque and contrary to nature. The par- 
able, while either fiction or fact, is always in harmony with 
nature. It is always possible and true to the laws of the 
person or thing used for the story. The parable eould have 
happened. 

It is not always easy to draw the line between parable and 
metaphor. Jesus saw Simon and Andrew casting a net into 
the sea, "for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, 
Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of 
men" (Mark 1:17). Put beside this passage these words 
from Luke 4:23: "And he said unto them, Doubtless ye will 
say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself; whatso- 
ever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in 
thine own country." The parabolic proverb lies in the use 
of "physician." Why not call "fishers of men" a parable? 
Must we not, then, find a parabolic proverb also in Mark 
2:17: "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but 
they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but 
sinners"? 

Jesus here first states the parable and then explains it. 
How far to use details in explaining the parable is always 
a question. Trench * overdoes it. Bruce 2 is a better 
guide. 

3. Groups of Parables. — So in Mark 2:18-22 Jesus employs 

1 Notes on the Parables. 2 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. 



THE PARABLES OF JESUS IN MARKS GOSPEL 99 

three parables in defense of his disciples who had not joined 
in one of the stated fasts of the Jews along with " John's 
disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees" when these 
unite in complaint against them. One regrets to see the 
disciples of the Baptist thus drawn into opposition to Jesus 
by the activity of the Pharisees. But clearly Jesus has gone 
further in his independent attitude towards Jewish cere- 
monialism than John had. Besides, John is still in prison 
and his disciples may resent the apparent indifference of 
Jesus to the fate of his forerunner. Already disciples of 
John had exhibited jealousy of the growing fame of Jesus 
(John 3:26). The disciples of Jesus had just gone with him 
to the feast of Levi with the publicans and sinners (Mark 
2:13-17) probably at the very time of one of the regular 
fasts (Mark 2:18). Hence the reaction of John's disciples 
to the side of the Pharisees, the critics of Jesus. In defense 
Jesus uses his favorite method of parabolic teaching. He 
contrasts the inevitable conflict between the old and the 
new by the parables of the sons of the bride-chamber or 
companions of the bridegroom, the patched garment, and 
the wine-skins. Mark does not call these sayings parables, 
but Luke (5:36) does: "And he spake also a parable unto 
them." Luke then gives the parable of the patched garment. 
If one is a parable, the others are. It is interesting to note 
that the Baptist had termed Jesus "the bridegroom" and 
himself "the friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). There 
is thus an echo of the Baptist's own words in the reply of 
Jesus to the mistaken disciples of John. They are in the 
wrong group and have missed their way about both John 
and Jesus. These three parables present in wonderful fash- 
ion the line of cleavage between Jewish ceremonialism and 
spiritual Christianity. The gospel of Christ is not to be 
cribbed and cabined by the rites and ceremonies of the old 
dispensation which had their place and sendee then. Mat- 
thew and Luke give these three parables, but evidently get 
them from Mark who wrote first and records Peter's vivid 



IOO STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

recital of the words of Jesus. Christianity is still bursting 
the shell of the old as the life of the new expands. 

The miracles of Jesus are acted parables and the parables 
are pedagogic miracles, as Augustine said. In Mark 5:39 
Jesus, upon entering the house of Jairus where many were 
weeping and wailing greatly, says, "Why make ye a tumult 
and weep? The child is not dead, but sleepeth." It is 
probable that here Jesus is using figurative language as in 
John 11:4: "This sickness is not unto death" and in 11:11: 
"Our friend Lazarus is asleep; but I go, that I may awake 
him out of sleep." And yet Lazarus was dead for four days 
when Jesus raised him from the dead. But even so the 
language is more metaphorical than technically parabolic. 

But there is no doubt about the parables in Mark 3:23-27 
for Mark expressly says: "And he called them unto him, 
and said unto them in parables." Then we have several 
brief pictures about Satan casting out Satan, a kingdom 
divided against itself, a house divided against itself, like 
cinema flashes that swiftly turn on the light and show the 
utter absurdity of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by 
the power of Beelzebub. Jesus often used this rapid-fire 
method with a number of parables. Instance the three in 
Luke 14, the three in Luke 15 (the lost sheep, the lost coin, 
the lost son), the seven and more in Matthew 13, the three 
in Matthew 21 and 22. Each parable presents a new facet 
of the truth while all sides of the question are brought to 
light. 

Another group of parables occurs in Mark 4:2-34. Mark 
states in so many words that "he taught them many things 
in parables," evidently meaning that there were many more 
on this occasion besides those that he records. After giving 
several (the sower, the lamp, the seed growing of itself, the 
grain of mustard seed) he adds this striking comment: "And 
with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as 
they were able to hear it; and without a parable spake he not 
unto them." Matthew (ch. 13) records nine on the same 



THE PARABLES OF JESUS IN MARKS GOSPEL IOI 

day, counting the lamp and the householder as parables as 
they manifestly are. Mark does not mean to say that Jesus 
always confined himself to parables, but that on this day 
(the Busy Day, the day of the Blasphemous Accusation) he 
did so purposely. The disciples were greatly puzzled over 
the number and the length of these narrative parables. 
"And when he was alone, they that were about him with the 
twelve asked of him the parables." They wanted to know 
why he used them and what he meant by them. The reply 
of Jesus shows that on this day he was employing parables 
as a means of concealing truth from those who would treat 
it as pearls cast before swine and yet at the same time as a 
blessing for those with eyes to see. "Unto you is given the 
mystery of the Kingdom of God; but unto them that are 
without, all things are done in parables; that seeing they may 
see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not 
understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should 
be forgiven them." This is a hard saying and sounds un- 
sympathetic, but we must remember that Jesus has in mind 
those who had just accused him of being in league with Satan 
and whom he had denounced as guilty of the unpardonable 
sin in attributing to the devil the manifest works of the Spirit 
of God. They deserved this judgment of obscurity for this 
heinous sin. The parables thus used were a pillar of light to 
the spiritually minded and a pillar of darkness to the ad- 
versaries of Jesus. Jesus wished people to understand him 
if they were kindly disposed toward him. So he proceeded to 
explain the parable of the sower with minute detail. "Know 
ye not this parable? and how shall ye know T all the parables? " 
"But privately to his own disciples he expounded all things." 
Thus we see the Master giving his disciples private inter- 
pretation of this aspect of his public teaching. They were to 
know the mystery of the kingdom. It was no longer a hidden 
secret to them, but a blessed secret that was revealed. "For 
there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither 
was anything made secret, but that it should come to light." 



102 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Christ did not change the primary purpose of parables in 
thus employing them as a curse upon his obdurate enemies. 
He puts the lamp upon the lamp-stand, not under the bushel, 
that it may give light for those with eyes to see. The blind 
do not see. The willfully deaf do not hear. "If any man 
hath ears to hear, let him hear." Jesus thus made direct 
appeal for attention and pointed his words with these arrows 
of conviction. He knew only too well how volatile some of 
them were, how preoccupied others were, how hard-hearted 
many were, how few really would let the seed bear fruit in 
heart and life. Other teachers come after the King. If Jesus 
found it so difficult to win attention, to hold it, to plant the 
seed of truth where it would find responsive soil, we need not 
wonder at our frequent failures in teaching and preaching. 
The very parables of Jesus that charmed so many threw 
others into utter confusion of thought. But Jesus was willing 
to cast bread upon the water in hope that it would come back 
after many days. The stories of Jesus stick in the mind like 
burrs. Some day the point of the story will be plain. He 
knew that when he told the parable. Evidently Peter, like 
the rest, was greatly impressed by the parables of that Busy 
Day. They stirred the disciples to talk and to learn. 

Moulton l says that only narrative parable required ex- 
planation, for similitudes and illustrative instances carried 
their own meaning. So they did, but the hearers by no means 
always saw it. The parable of the sower is really allegory, 
while that of the seed growing of itself is similitude. 

4. Difficulty in Understanding Christ's Parables. — Jesus 
was a prophet and so it is hardly necessary to call the proverb 
in Mark 6:14 a parable: "A prophet is not without honor, 
save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his 
own house." It is a parabolic proverb like that in Luke 
6:39 which is called a parable: "Can the blind guide the 
blind?" The dullness of the disciples in comprehending 
some of the simplest parables of Jesus is due to their theolog- 
1 " Parable," Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels , 



THE PARABLES OE JESUS IN MARK S GOSPEL 103 

ical prepossessions. Their Pharisaic environment colored 
their vision so that it was hard for them to see the obvious 
(to us) spiritual truth. In the clash with the Pharisees over 
the tradition of washing the hands for ceremonial purity 
Jesus, says: "Hear me all of you, and understand: there is 
nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile 
him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those 
that defile the man." (Mark 7:15). Then Jesus made a 
special plea for attention and the parable is so very obvious 
that we almost fail to see the parabolic form. And yet "when 
he was entered into the house from the multitude, his dis- 
ciples asked of him the parable" (Mark 7:17). They actually 
could not see the inevitable implication of Christ's teaching 
concerning the uselessness of the Pharisaic rites. Matthew 
(15:12) reports that the disciples said: "Knowest thou that 
the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? " 
The disciples evidently felt that Jesus had gone too far in his 
criticism of the Pharisees and they did not know precisely 
where they stood themselves. One has only to recall Peter's 
difficulty later in Joppa in understanding the vision on the 
house-top when he refused the Lord's invitation to rise, slay, 
and eat. "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything 
that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14). That w r as after 
the bestowal of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Then in this 
incident in the Gospels, "Peter answered and said unto him, 
Declare unto us this parable" (Matt. 15:15). Peter spoke 
for all of them who realized that they could not go with Jesus 
in his breach with Pharisaism on this point, if they understood 
his parable. So they begged for further light. Jesus sharply 
upbraids their dullness: "Are ye also without understanding? 
Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the man, it can- 
not defile him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into 
his belly, and goeth out into the draught?" (Mark 7:18). 
Mark does not give the reply of the disciples, if they made 
any, which is hardly likely. As we have seen, Peter did not 
see the bearing of this parable till his experience at Joppa 



104 STUDIES IN MARKS GOSPEL 

and Caesarea (Acts 10). But Mark breaks right into the 
explanation of Jesus (7:18-23) by a sharp anacoluthon at 
the close of verse 19, " making all meats clean." This is 
probably due to a side remark of Peter as he recounted the 
incident and to Mark's preservation of this touch of life. 
Peter's explanatory comment reflects the new light on this 
parable that he obtained at Joppa. Bugge 1 calls this more 
paradox than parable, but parable has a very flexible use. 

In the intellectual passage of arms between Jesus and the 
Syrophcenician woman (Mark 7:25-30) Jesus said: "Let the 
children first be filled, for it is not meet to take the children's 
bread and cast it to the dogs." This proverb might have 
cut the woman to the quick, Greek as she was. But, instead 
of flying off the handle at the apparent rebuff, with nimble 
wit she caught up the parable of Jesus and gave it a deft turn 
to her own advantage: "Yea, Lord; even the dogs (the little 
dogs, literally) under the table eat of the children's crumbs." 
It was bright and it was true and she scored by her neat and 
complete answer. Jesus said in reply: "For this saying go 
thy way; the demon is gone out of thy daughter." Jesus 
rewarded her bright faith. Is it irreverent to imagine a merry 
twinkle in the eyes of Jesus as the woman showed her grat- 
itude and joy? Humor and pathos lie close together as this 
incident shows. The woman's courage carried her through 
and she took Christ at his word and went home to her daugh- 
ter. In the presence of so much stupidity in spiritual things 
Jesus seemed to find positive delight in the quick wit of this 
Greek woman. 

Quite otherwise was the dreary dullness of the disciples 
concerning "the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of 
Herod" (Mark 8:15). The literalness of the disciples in 
trying to apply the warning of the master is absolutely jejune 
when "they reasoned one with another, saying, we have no 
bread." They thought the warning against the kind of bread 
used by the Pharisees and Herod needless because they had 
1 Die Hauplparabeln Jesu } 1903. 



THE PARABLES OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 10$ 

no bread at all. To be sure the disciples were not always so 
dull as this, else they would have been hopeless pupils. The 
best of us are duller at times than is usual for us. But the 
incapacity of the disciples on this occasion greatly disap- 
pointed Jesus. His sharp questions are more than justified 
by their slowness to grasp this simple parable. " Why reason 
ye, because ye have no bread? Do ye not yet perceive, 
neither understand? Have ye your heart hardened? Having 
eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? And do ye 
not remember?" (Mark 8:17/.) Then Jesus reminds them 
of the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand, 
acted parables as these miracles were. Once more the Master 
asks: "Do ye not yet understand?" (8:21). There Mark 
leaves the incident, striking testimony to the fidelity of Peter 
in reporting his own obtuseness. Matthew, however, states 
that, after Christ's repeated questions, "then they under- 
stood how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of 
bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 
(Matt. 16:12). Jesus was the most patient of teachers and 
had given the disciples parable upon parable. They were 
without excuse and without resource, though at last they saw 
the point. The true teacher will keep at it till he makes 
the dull ones see what he means. The parable is designed 
to turn on the light, but here light had to be thrust on the 
parable. 

5. Pointedness of Christ 1 s Parables. — Is it not a parable 
when Jesus rebukes Peter by saying: "Get thee behind me, 
Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the 
things of men" (Mark 8:33)? Certainly this sudden and 
sharp epithet shocked Peter and the others and ought to 
have opened their eyes to the real meaning of Jesus con- 
cerning his death. It is worth noting that, if Mark obtained 
the account of this incident from Peter, Peter did not re- 
frain from showing how he had distressed the heart of Christ. 

Mark speaks of a group of parables in 12:1: "And he 
began to speak unto them in parables." He gives, however, 



Io6 STUDIES IN MARK 5 S GOSPEL 

only one, that of the householder who let his vineyard out 
to husbandmen who abused their trust and finally killed the 
householder's son. By this parable Jesus portrayed the 
treatment that he was receiving at the hands of the Jews. 
It is part of his defense to the Sanhedrin when they attack 
him in the Temple on the last day of his public ministry. 
There is a threat in the application of the parable concerning 
God's judgment on the Jews for their mistreatment of his 
Son. "What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?" 
(12:9). "He will come and destroy the husbandman and 
give the vineyard to others." The Jewish leaders saw the 
point of this parable which went home like a sure arrow. 
" And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared the 
multitude; for they perceived that he spake the parable 
against them; and they left him and went away" (12:12). 
The anger, fear, and vacillation of the Sanhedrin come out 
finely in this summary by Mark. Matthew narrates two 
other parables on this same occasion, that of the two sons 
and that of the marriage feast and the wedding garment. 
They helped to clinch the point of the fate of the Jews for 
rejecting the Son of God and slaying him. 

Once more in Mark 13:28 we find a parable. " Now from 
the fig tree learn her parable." Jesus uses the tender branches 
of the fig tree as the sign of summer. There the disciples 
were to watch for the signs of the coming doom of Jersualem 
and also for the coming of the Son of man at the end. It is 
possible that in verses 30 and 31 Christ refers to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem: " This generation shall not pass away till 
all these things be accomplished." In verse 32 we may have 
the further and more remote event of his second coming: 
" But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the 
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." In this 
interpretation Jesus is not contradicting himself, but has in 
mind two events, one a symbol of the other. If this view is 
correct, the new paragraph should begin with verse 32. So 
the Master proceeds: "Take ye heed, watch and pray; for 



THE PARABLES OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 107 

ye know not when the time is" (13:33). Then Christ gives 
the parable of the porter and the other servants to illustrate 
the great need for watching for his coming (Mark 13:34-37). 
The master of the house in his absence gave each servant 
his task and commanded the porter also to watch for his 
coming. The sudden return of the lord of the house would 
be very embarrassing if all the servants were sleeping. Alas, 
how dull we have all become and how little we really " watch " 
for the Lord's coming. 

Shall we call the use of the fruit of the vine for the blood 
of Christ and the bread for his body a parable? When Jesus 
said: " This is my body " and " This is my blood of the cove- 
nant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:22, 24), he 
was not using language literally as the Roman Catholics 
hold. It is a figurative and symbolic use and can be properly 
termed a parable. 

6. Summary. — We may now gather up the facts in Mark's 
report of Christ's parables. There are twenty-two in the 
list above, but that is giving a generous latitude to the use 
of the word. Several are barely more than metaphors. A 
number are proverbs. Most of them are very brief. In 
fact, there are only two of any length, the sower in chapter 4 
and the householder and the vineyard in chapter 12. This is 
quite in contrast to Luke and Matthew which have a number 
of parables of considerable length (Luke 14, 15, 16, 18 and 
Matthew 13, 21, 22, 25). The parables of Jesus are given 
all the way from 27 to 59. Mark has few of the great king- 
dom parables found in Matthew and Luke, though one of 
them, the seed growing of itself, occurs only in Mark. In 
Mark the parables of Jesus are like momentary flash-lights, a 
sort of touch-and-go in the teaching of Jesus. He used para- 
bles " as they were able to hear it" (4:33). And yet Mark 
several times alludes to the great number of Christ's parables. 
The great majority of his parables were probably like those in 
Mark, vivid and sharp. The great number of them seemed 
like the constant play of lightning in the storm and darkness. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 1 

"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among 
themselves saying, What is this? a new teaching!" Mark 1:27. 

1. The Objectivity of Mark. — -We do not usually look to 
Mark's Gospel for the teaching of Jesus, but rather to Mat- 
thew, Luke, and John. In fact it is now almost a common- 
place in New Testament criticism that Mark and Q (the 
Logia of Jesus) are the two main sources of Matthew and 
Luke. Bacon is quite sure that the canonical Mark is em- 
bellished at points by the use of Q. 2 

However that may be, there is an undoubted contrast 
between the objectivity of Mark's narrative and the dis- 
courses in the other Gospels. 

Neither Matthew nor Luke considers his task performed 
without embodying the substance of the sayings or teaching 
of the Lord. Matthew in particular regards it as the very 
essence of an evangelist's duty to " teach men to observe 
all things whatsoever Jesus had commanded." Mark cer- 
tainly was not ignorant of such teaching or commandments 
of the Lord, even if we refuse his acquaintance with the 
particular document employed by Matthew and Luke. 
And yet he leaves his readers completely without informa- 
tion on the law of Jesus. 3 

We may admit that Mark was familiar with Q. He avoided 
using Q because that was already in use precisely as the 

1 The Biblical World (Chicago), July, 19 18. 

2 Bacon, The Beginnings of the Gospel Story, 1909, p. xxi. 

3 Ibid. , p. xxvii. 

108 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 109 

Fourth Gospel mainly supplements the Synoptic Gospels. 
Stanton * and Moffatt 2 deny that Mark made any use of 
Q. "Peter's teaching may have contained nearly all the 
sayings of Christ which are reported by Mark." 3 Swete 
says that " St. Mark does not write with a dogmatic pur- 
pose." 4 Similarly Salmond says: " One of the most marked 
characteristics is the simple objectivity of the narrative. 
It is not the product of reflection, nor does it give things 
colored by the writer's own ideas. It has been called a 
' transcript from life' (Westcott)." And yet it will not do 
to say that Mark had no purpose and no plan in his Gospel. 
Bacon sees it and says: "His effort is simply to produce 
belief in his person as Son of God." 5 Pfleiderer admits " a 
comparatively clearer and more naive presentation of tra- 
dition" and "an earlier stage of apologetic authorship," 6 
but he insists " that even this oldest Gospel writer is guided 
by a decided apologetic purpose in the selection and mani- 
festation of material." 7 Gould 8 notes that in Mark's Gos- 
pel, Jesus is presented as a herald of the kingdom, then as 
a teacher with the note of authority, then as a prophet, then 
as a miracle worker, the Son of man, and finally as the Mes- 
siah, the Son of God. "Now Mark's method begins to 
appear. Jesus does not lay down a programme of the Mes- 
sianic Kingdom in a set discourse, but the principles regu- 
lating his activity are slowly evolved by the occasions of his 
life." Gould is undoubtedly correct in this view of Mark's 
plan in his Gospel. Mark's Gospel proves the deity of Jesus 
mainly by the force of the work which he did. "But it is 
evident that Mark has grouped his material for a purpose. 

1 The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 1909, 109-14. 

2 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 191 1, pp. 204-6. 

3 Plummer, "St. Mark," Cambridge Bible for Schools, 19 14, p. xxi. 

4 Commentary, 1898, p. lxxxviii. 

5 "Gospel of Mark" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, p. xxvii. 

6 Christian Origins, transl., 1906, p. 217. 

7 Ibid., p. 219. 

8 International Critical Commentary, 1896, pp. xix-xx. 



IIO STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

He wishes to show how, with one occasion after another, the 
teaching of our Lord acquired substance and shape and 
encountered a sharp and well-defined opposition." x 

2. A Minimum of Teaching. — There is in Mark a minimum 
of teaching by Christ, but the teaching is present and is 
worth our study. Jesus is repeatedly called " teacher" (4:38; 
5:35; 9:17, 38; 12:14; 13:1). Bacon thinks that in Mark 
8:27-10:52 "here at last we do find our evangelist giving 
the content of Jesus' message. . . . This Division of the 
Doctrine of the Cross is Mark's Sermon on the Mount." 2 
He attributes this portion to Paul's influence on Mark: 
"The Paulinism of Mark is supremely manifest in this 
evangelist's whole conception of what constitutes the apos- 
tolic message." 3 Pfleiderer had already taken the same posi- 
tion and charges Mark with inventing these "Pauline" 
speeches and attributing them to Jesus. "The pupil of Paul 
is most evident in the speeches, which the evangelist did not 
find in his source-book or in the Palestinian tradition, but 
created independently and for the first time fitted into the 
traditional material as the leading religious motives for the 
judgment of the history of Jesus." 4 Indeed Pfleiderer 
pointedly charges Mark with being partly responsible for 
theologizing the Jesus of history into the Christ of Paul. 
"Such a man might well have been the author of the Gospel 
which unites the Jesus of the Palestinian tradition, the ener- 
getic hero of a Jewish reform movement, with the Christ 
of the Pauline theology, the suffering hero of a mystical world- 
salvation, and thus paved the way which was finished two 
generations later in the Gospel of John." 5 It is quite to the 
point, therefore, since a purpose like that is attributed to 
Mark, to see what he really does represent Jesus as teaching. 

3. The Method of Mark. — The headline properly describes 

1 International Critical Commentary, 1896, p. xxii. 

2 Beginnings of Gospel Story, pp. xxvii/. 

3 Ibid., p. xxviii. 

4 Christian Origins, p. 220. b Ibid., p. 222. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL III 

the book. It is "the Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God." But it is the method of Jesus with which 
we are here concerned, not that of the Gospel. "We must 
pause again to notice Mark's method, and to say now that it 
bears all the appearance of being the method of Jesus himself. 
He meets questions as they arise, instead of projecting dis- 
course from himself. But the wisdom and completeness of his 
answer anticipate the controversies of Christendom." * This 
is the method of Jesus in his teaching. He seized the occa- 
sions as they came to proclaim the message of the kingdom, 
now on this point, now on that. "It is their opportunity, 
but then it is Jesus ' opportunity too. It gives him his chance 
to strike at traditionalism and ceremonialism, the two foes 
of spiritual religion." 2 But the teaching of Jesus is coherent 
and consistent in spite of its incidental occasion and apho- 
ristic form. One has only to think of Socrates as reported by 
Plato and Xenophon to see how this can be true. Let us then 
turn to the sayings of Jesus in Mark and see what they teach 
us. 

4. Logia of Jesus. — The first logion of Jesus is in 1:15 and 
reminds us of the message of the Baptist in 1 -.14. Like John, 
the Master announced the fullness of the time and the near- 
ness of the Kingdom of God. We are not told what the word 
"kingdom" means in the mouth of Jesus, but the event shows 
that Jesus conceived it to be a spiritual reign in men's hearts, 
not the political rule looked for by the Pharisees. The duty 
of repentance was urged, a turning of the heart and life to 
God. Faith in the gospel was commended. Jesus had a 
definite message (the gospel) or good news, and he expected 
men to believe it. This saying of Jesus is the theme of the 
Galilean ministry. 3 

The next logion of Jesus is in 1:17. It is the call to Simon 
and Andrew to follow Jesus permanently, with the promise 

1 Gould, "Mark," International Critical Commentary, p. xxv. 

2 Ibid., p. xxiv. 

3 Cf. Bruce, The Galilean Gospel. 



112 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

of making them " fishers of men," the only really " big busi- 
ness" in the world. The call caught the hearts of these two 
enterprising laymen and also won James and John, who left 
their business to go into the bigger task of winning men to 
Christ. The message of Jesus thus has point and force. It 
is public and personal. Jesus won these four followers by 
direct personal appeal. He claimed them and they ac- 
knowledged his authority. He drafted them for service. 

The next logion is in 1:25 to the demon which Jesus com- 
manded to come out of the poor man. Jesus here recognized 
the reality of demon possession and exercised his power over 
the evil spirit. The demon had addressed Jesus as " the Holy 
One of God," but Jesus commanded him to be silent, not 
wishing testimony from such a source. The demoniacs 
seemed to know that Jesus was the Son of God and loudly 
proclaimed it (cf. 5 7/.). 

The next saying is in 1:38 and concerns the purpose of 
Jesus to leave the crowds in Capernaum and push on to the 
next towns. Only one more incident comes in chapter 1, 
the healing of the leper, to whose pitiful appeal Jesus said, " I 
will; be thou made clean" (1:41), and then told the man to 
go and show himself to the priest (1:44). But these logia 
reveal Jesus as Lord and Master of men, as Teacher and 
Prophet, whose words and deeds had set Galilee ablaze. 

5. Making a Point of the Teaching, — In chapter 2 the teach- 
ing is more prominent. In fact, Jesus forgave the sins of the 
paralytic before he healed him, and, when challenged, as- 
serted his power to forgive sins and his consequent equality 
with God and proceeded to heal the man in order to prove 
that he possessed the right to forgive sins (2:5-11). This in- 
cident illustrates well how the teaching of Jesus in Mark's 
Gospel is associated with the actual events. The profoundest 
sayings of Christ burst forth spontaneously out of the every- 
day work. Here Jesus revealed a consciousness of his equality 
with God quite Johannine in tone, and that was considered 
blasphemy by the scribes present. The use of the phrase 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 113 

" the Son of man" is also characteristic. It is messianic in 
fact without giving his enemies a technical ground for arrest- 
ing him. It also puts Jesus, though the Son of God, as the 
Father called him and as the demon understood (1:24; 5:7), 
on a level with men in sympathy and love as their represen- 
tative and ideal. 

In 2:17 we have one of the crisp parables of Jesus that 
throw a flood of light on himself and his enemies. The Phari- 
sees posed as righteous and called other men sinners, as we 
know from the Psalms of the Pharisees. "Righteous" and 
" sinners" are here then class distinctions. Jesus does not 
mean to admit that the Pharisees are really righteous, but 
only that their claim to that class reflects their complaint 
at him for preaching to, and eating with, the publicans and 
sinners. It is a neat turn of unanswerable wit and is a com- 
plete justification for Christianity's mission to the so-called 
sinful classes. As a matter of fact, Pharisaic pride (cf. Matt., 
chap. 6) is one of the worst and most hopeless of sins. 

In 2:19-22 Jesus is again on the defensive and justifies 
the conduct of his disciples in abstaining from one of the 
stated fasts which the disciples of John and the Pharisees 
were observing (2: 18). The three parables (the Bridegroom, 
the Undressed Cloth, the Wine-skins) all show how radically 
Christianity differs from current Judaism (the Pharisaic 
orthodoxy). Jesus makes it plain that Christianity has burst 
the swaddling-clothes of Jewish ceremonialism and can never 
again be put back into such bonds. And yet various types 
of Christianity have tried to put clamps upon the life of the 
spiritual man. Jesus here attacks sacramentarianism as a 
system, while commending fasting when it is the natural 
expression of real grief, and not mere custom or display. 
Jesus also reveals foreknowledge of his approaching death 
and shows a messianic consciousness, calling himself " the 
bridegroom." 

Few things irritated the Pharisees more than Christ's 
failure to observe their rules for sabbath observance. His 



114 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

defense against their attack made them more angry than 
ever by reason of his claim of superiority to these rules and 
even to the day itself as the Son of man. Indeed he asserted 
that the day was for man's blessing, not for his injury 
(2:25-28). Jesus challenged the Pharisaic punctiliousness 
concerning the sabbath as slavery to the letter and a refusal 
to do good and willingness to let men die on that day (3:1). 
This attitude of Jesus widened the breach between him and 
the Pharisees and healed that between them and the Hero- 
dians, who joined hands plotting his death (3 :$f.) . 

In 3:22-30 Jesus not only defends himself against the 
charge of being in league with the devil by a series of brief 
parables, but also attacks the Pharisees with tremendous 
force and shows that they are guilty of an eternal sin which 
has no forgiveness, since they attribute to the devil the mani- 
fest work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus here denies universal 
salvation and proclaims eternal punishment for some. In 
sharp contrast with this incident note the beautiful words of 
Jesus in 3:34/., when he finds his mother and his brethren 
among those who do the will of God. This he said at the 
time when his own family supposed that he was beside him- 
self and had come to take him home. 

Chapter 4 is the parable chapter in Mark. We have only a 
few specimens of the many parables spoken on that day 
(4:2, 10, 33/.). The parable of the Sower is given and ex- 
plained by Jesus and shows the variety of hearers who hear 
the word that is spoken, as every preacher finds out to his 
sorrow. The place for the lamp is on the stand so as to give 
light. How careless men are with their opportunities. The 
mysterious growth of the kingdom in the heart is illustrated 
by the story of the seed growing of itself. The expanding 
power of the kingdom is shown by the mustard seed's de- 
velopment. 

And yet with all the care in Christ's teaching the disciples 
were still fearful and timid in their faith when caught in the 
storm. The power of Christ over wind and wave amazed 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 11$ 

them (4:41), and shows that only gradually were they grasp- 
ing the truth about Christ's person and mission. In 5:19 
Jesus told the former demoniac to go home and tell his 
friends what great things God had done for him, whereas 
he told the leper not to tell (1:44). But this w T as in Gentile 
territory where there was no danger of undue excitement, 
especially as Jesus was leaving the region. In Nazareth, 
Jesus revealed the fact that he knew how unable the people 
in his home town were to appreciate him at his real worth 
(6:4). The directions that Jesus gave the Twelve for the 
Galilean tour were particular and special and not meant to 
apply to all mission campaigns (6:8-11). 

The feeding of the five thousand was the occasion of much 
teaching (6:34), but Mark has not given it, probably because 
Peter did not tell it. However, the power of Christ is revealed 
in the miracle and in the walking on the water. Jesus taught 
the disciples how to face great problems and to be of cheer 
in time of stress and strain. 

6. A Revolutionary Discourse. — Chapter 7 gives one of the 
revolutionary discourses of Jesus when he accused the Phar- 
isees of preferring tradition to truth and twitted them with 
their hypocritical practice of "Corban." The doctrine that, 
not ceremonial contaminations, but only the sinful thoughts 
of the heart really defile a man astonished even the disciples 
so much that they interviewed Jesus privately about it. 
Peter's amazement lasted till his experience on the housetop 
at Joppa (Acts, ch. 10), and Mark notes what Jesus said to 
the disciples ''making all meats clean " (Mark 7:19). In 7:27 
Jesus proclaims to the Syrophcenician woman the doctrine 
that the gospel comes to the Jew first. He tests her and then 
grants her request. Jesus knew that he was to be the Saviour 
of the world, but the chosen people had the first privilege. 

In 8 -.2/. Christ shows his pity for the multitudes. For three 
days they have been with Jesus listening to his teaching. 
Now he desires to feed their stomachs as well as their souls, 
lest they faint on the way, It is good to use the kitchen as 



Il6 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

well as the pulpit, if one does not let the soup kitchen take the 
place of the gospel. Christ first fed their hearts and then 
satisfied their hunger out of pity. We are prone to use hunger 
as a bit to entice men to hear the gospel. 

7. Confessing His Messiahship. — Jesus had much to try 
his spirit. The captious criticism of his enemies made Christ 
refuse to perform signs to order, especially signs from heaven 
to conform to their theological implications about the messi- 
ahship (8:11/.). The dullness of the disciples distressed 
Jesus greatly when they took his parable about the leaven of 
the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod literally for actual 
bread (8:15^.), an absolutely jejune performance. Jesus 
took them to task sharply for intellectual inertness (8:17-21). 
Every teacher has his times of discouragement when it seems 
useless to go on. But better days come to us all, as they did 
to Jesus. Near Caesaria Philippi, Jesus tested his disciples 
concerning their opinion of him. People had various ideas 
of Jesus then, but Peter spoke up for the Twelve and said, 
"Thou art the Christ' 7 (8:29). Jesus was pleased at the con- 
fession, though he urged them not to tell it publicly. John's 
Gospel shows that Jesus revealed himself to some as the 
Messiah at the beginning of his work. The public announce- 
ment of this fact, however, came at the end of his ministry 
and helped to precipitate the crisis, as Jesus foresaw it would. 
The value of the confession of the disciples "is in the fact that 
it is not their assent to his claim, but their estimate of his 
greatness. They, as Jews, had inherited an idea, an expecta- 
tion of a man in whom human greatness would culminate. . . . 
The race has culminated in him, and he is therefore the 
Messiah whom we are to expect." l 

8. Foretelling His Death. — Jesus had reached a crisis in his 
work, and the disciples are true to him even after the great 
Galilean defection. They are now in a position to be told 
the truth about the cross of Christ, his sacrificial death as 
the Saviour from sin. " And he began to teach them many 

1 Gould, "Mark," International Critical Commentary , p. sxvi. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 117 

things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, 
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again'' 
(8 13 1) . The time had come ' ' and he spake the saying openly." 
A surgeon often probes deep enough to find inflammation 
where all seemed to be healed over. "And Peter took him 
and began to rebuke him." Peter could not bear to have 
Jesus interfere with his messianic theology by talking about 
his death. That to Peter spoiled everything, absolutely 
everything, for he still had the Pharisaic notion of a political 
Messiah and kingdom. The word of Jesus cut Peter to the 
quick: "Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the 
things of God, but the things of men" ($'.33). Dazed as 
Peter was, it is doubtful if he grasped clearly the profound 
words of Jesus that followed concerning the philosophy of 
life and death, of finding life in death, and death in life. 
And yet he treasured them in his memory till he did under- 
stand them, and Mark wrote them down. One may gain the 
whole world and forfeit one's soul, like the madness of Alex- 
ander the Great, or Napoleon, or the Kaiser. The Son of 
man is the judge of this world and he will be ashamed of those 
who are ashamed of him (8:38). 

9. Eschatology. — The words of Jesus in 9:1 have puzzled 
many. What does Jesus mean by those still living who would 
see the Kingdom of God come with power? The Transfigura- 
tion, his own resurrection, Pentecost, the destruction of 
Jerusalem, the second coming? Each view has its diffi- 
culties. We have come upon the eschatology of Jesus, 
a theme that bristles with difficulties. Schweitzer * makes 
eschatology the chief thing in the teaching of Jesus. He 
is thus a mere apocalyptical dreamer with only "in- 
terim" ethics and no world-programme. Sanday answers 
this one-sided view well in his The Life of Christ in Recent 
Research (1907). See further, Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of 
the Gospels (19 10); Muirhead, The Eschatology of Jesus (1904); 
Jackson, The Eschatology of Jesus (1913); Oesterley, The 
1 The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 19 10, transl. 



Il8 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Apocalypse of Jesus (191 2); Winstanley, Jesus and the Future 
(1913); Worsley, The Apocalypse of Jesus (191 2). We are 
face to face with the question whether Jesus had adopted the 
cataclysmic view of the current Jewish apocalyptists and 
expected a sudden demonstration of power that never came 
and a personal return within that generation. In a word, 
we are asked to believe that Jesus was grievously mistaken 
in the very thing concerning which he claimed superior knowl- 
edge, viz., the Kingdom of God. He did use apocalyptic 
imagery, as in chapter 13, the so-called " Little Apocalypse," 
the Sermon on the Mount of Olives, in which he foretold 
the destruction of Jerusalem and finally the end of the world. 
The language is symbolic and highly figurative, but Jesus ex- 
pressly disclaims knowledge of the time of the end of the 
world (13:32), and that makes us wonder if he can have that 
idea in mind in 9:1 and in 13:30. We have not reached the 
end of this debate, but the eschatological side of Christ's 
teaching in the apocalyptic form must not be made the major 
thing in his teaching to the neglect of the ethical and clearly 
spiritual notes which we can understand. 

We have no word from Jesus on the Mount of Transfigura- 
tion, but he manifests keen disappointment at the failure of 
the disciples to cure the epileptic boy while he was on the 
mountain (9:19), and tells the father that faith is the door 
to all power (9:23) — faith and prayer (9:29), which the dis- 
ciples had omitted, obvious explanation of much failure 
to-day on the part of workers for Christ. 

10. Practical Ethics in the Light of the Cross.— The time 
drew nearer when Jesus must make plain the fact of his 
coming death (9:30-32). Not only did the disciples not 
understand his teaching on this point, but apparently took 
no interest in it, for they were bent on settling their own rank 
so as to be ready for the chief places in the political kingdom 
which they expected the Messiah to set up (9:33-37). Jesus 
made service the test of greatness and child-likeness the mark 
of discipleship. The rebuke of John's narrowness is pertinent 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK S GOSPEL 119 

to-day when men are often overzealous about punctilios, and 
partisanship overtops loyalty to Christ. 

The position of Christ on marriage and divorce is chal- 
lenged by many to-day as then. Easy divorce has always 
been popular in times of loose living. Mark (10:5-12) does 
not give the one ground for divorce found in Matt. 5:32 and 
19:9, and Mark quotes Christ as forbidding wives to divorce 
their husbands. Only Jewish women of prominence could do 
that, women like Salome, Herod's sister, and Herodias. 
Christ's love for little children is shown by his tender words 
in io:i4ff., and his love for a young man in the grip of a great 
sin appears in 10:21. Jesus spoke plainly about the terrible 
power of money over men's lives (10:23-31). His words 
amazed Peter and the rest, but in these days of war-profiteer- 
ing and national land-grabbing it is easy enough to see the 
point. 

The plain prediction of the death of Jesus still failed to 
impress the disciples, for James and John came right up to 
ask for the chief places in the kingdom. But at least we get 
from the incident the profound words of Jesus concerning his 
atoning death as the crowning illustration of devoted service 
for others (10:32-45), words whose depth we still cannot 
fathom. 

Faith made blind Bartimasus whole, Jesus said (10:52), 
and faith can remove mountains still (11:2 3-2 5) , faith coupled 
with the forgiving spirit. Jesus purposely proclaimed himself 
Messiah by the triumphal entry, and claimed messianic 
power in cleansing the Temple (11:17). Nowhere does the 
mastery of Christ stand out more clearly than in the wonder- 
ful debate on the Tuesday of Passion Week, when Jesus 
routed his enemies in a series of attacks in the Temple (11:27- 
44). Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Sanhedrin, and stu- 
dents, all w r ent down before the storm and fury of Christ's 
withering words. The more they winced, the more the com- 
mon people rejoiced, and Christ remained the master- 
teacher of the Temple, to the rage of his foes. 



120 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

The eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives 
(ch. 13) followed on that same afternoon, with its wondrous 
picture of the woes impending upon Jerusalem and the warn- 
ing against that day of doom and the remote judgment of the 
world. The apocalyptic language symbolizes the power of 
Christ, and the pictures flashed upon the dark background 
like the play of lightning on the storm clouds. We falter as 
we seek to interpret these symbols, but we must not rob them 
of all pith and point. 

11. The Sacrificial Aspect of Christ's Death.- — Mary of 
Bethany alone showed insight concerning Christ's death, and 
he defended her deed in words of immortal sympathy that 
angered Judas and spurred him on to make his hellish com- 
pact with the puzzled ecclesiastics (14:1-11). But Jesus did 
not hesitate to point out the betrayer during the last Pass- 
over meal, though the rest seem not to have grasped the sig- 
nal (14:12-21). The words of Christ in the institution of the 
Supper plainly show that Christ was conscious of the sacri- 
ficial aspect of his atoning death for the sins of men (14:22-25). 
The warning to Peter brought only boasting (14:27-31) and 
the privilege of watching with Christ in his agony in the 
garden found the chosen three inert in body and unable to 
keep awake while the Son of man writhed on the ground with 
the load of the sins of mankind. The cry for help to the 
Father was wrung from the broken, but not rebellious, heart 
of God's Son, who submitted wholly to the Father's will 
(14:32-40). Jesus meets his betrayal, arrest, trial, and cruci- 
fixion with an air of innocence and of triumph (14:41-15:37). 
He is fully aware that he has voluntarily surrendered his life 
for the life of men, and his courage to the end is not really 
marred by the cry of loneliness after three hours of darkness, 
when he felt so keenly that the Father had withdrawn for the 
moment his conscious presence (15 :34). Jesus on oath before 
the Sanhedrin claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God 
(14:61/.), but he also claimed that, though they killed him, he 
would come in glory on the clouds and judge the whole earth. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARKS GOSPEL 121 

Thus it will be seen that, while Mark's Gospel does give 
only occasional sayings of Christ in connection with the his- 
torical occasions that called them forth, it in no wise gives 
a "reduced" Christianity. These extracts have the same 
flavor that we find in Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. The 
"samples" prove the quality of the whole. The teaching of 
Jesus in Mark's Gospel is clear and consistent concerning the 
Father, the Son, sin, salvation, the kingdom, and the moral 
regeneration of men. 



CHAPTER X 

ARAMAIC AND LATIN TERMS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 1 

"Abba, Father." Mark 14:36. 

1. Mark's Habit as Interpreter. — The presence of Aramaic 
translations in Mark's Gospel has been used as proof that 
he wrote originally in that language. Blass, Marshall, 
Wellhausen and others, as we have seen, have so argued. 
But Swete urges that the use of both transliteration and trans- 
lation seems to show that the book was written originally 
in Greek. We know from Papias that Mark was Peter's 
interpreter or dragoman, and was equally at home in both 
Aramaic and Greek, while Peter usually spoke in the Aramaic. 
It seems likely that Mark's habit of translating for Peter's 
discourses crops out in the Gospel which was probably writ- 
ten in the current Greek. 

2. Proper Names.— -It is interesting to note these Aramaic 
terms and the circumstances connected with their use. Some 
of them are in Mark alone, some in Matthew, Luke or John, 
but Mark has more of them, and several times he both 
transliterates and translates. Mark has the Aramaic form 
of some proper names, like Simon the Cananaean (3:18, Zealot 
in Luke 6:14), Judas Iscarioth (3:19, Iscariot in Luke 6: 
16), Golgotha (15:22; Matt. 27:33) is translated both in 
Matthew and Mark as u the place of a skull," while Luke (23 : 
33) has only "the place which is called the skull" (like Latin 
Calvary), and John (19:17) has "the place called the place 
of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha." It is not 
surprising that the Gospels all seek to locate carefully the 

1 The Convention Teacher (Nashville), May, 19 18. 
122 



ARAMAIC AND LATIN TERMS IN MARK'S GOSPEL 1 23 

scene of the tragedy of the cross on the hill which looks like a 
skull just to the north of Jersualem. 

3. Boanerges. — In 3:17 Mark says that Jesus surnamed 
James and John " Boanerges, which is sons of thunder." 
It is not said that Jesus gave them this " nickname" at the 
time that they were chosen as apostles. We know that later 
James and John wished to call down fire from heaven on the 
Samaritan village that did not receive Christ kindly and were 
sternly rebuked by Jesus (Luke 9:52-55). This explosive 
trait in the two brothers appears also in the impulsive request 
that they be given the two chief places in Christ's kingdom 
(Mark 10:35/7.; Matt. 20:20$*.). Mark alone has preserved 
the word " Boanerges" as applied by Christ to them, but 
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) says that in Peter's 
" Memoirs'" of Jesus is recorded the fact that Jesus " named 
the two sons of Zebedee 'Boanerges/ which means 'sons of 
thunder." 5 "Mark's Gospel was sometimes called Peter's 
Memorabilia of Jesus. 

4. Talitha cum (z). — In 5:41 we have another instance of 
the Aramaic transliteration. There is a tender touch of 
pathos in the preservation of the very words used by Jesus 
as he stood by the bedside of the twelve-year old daughter 
of Jairus. The message had already come to Jesus that the 
child was dead and that he need not trouble further about the 
case (Mark 5:35/), but Jesus disregarded the word and urged 
the ruler, "Fear not, only believe." He took along with him 
Peter, James, and John. The crowd of mourners "laughed 
him to scorn," when Jesus insisted that "the child is not 
dead, but sleepeth." Mark is never more graphic than in the 
following verse: " But he, having put them all forth, taketh the 
father of the child and her mother and them that were with 
him, and goeth in where the child was." Peter was in that 
chamber of death and now for the first time saw Jesus raise 
the dead. He remembered Christ's very words as "taking 
the child by the hand, he saith unto her, ' Talitha cum (*)•'" 
Jesus used either Greek or Aramaic as occasion required. 



124 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Here he spoke in Aramaic and these are the very words 
employed by him; just these two words. "Talitha" means 
"maid," and "cunt (f)" means "arise." Mark heard Peter 
tell the story and kept the Aramaic language of Jesus, but 
took pains to translate it in Greek for the benefit of his many 
readers who did not know the Aramaic, just as John trans- 
lates the Aramaic titles "rabbi" (1:38) and "Messiah" 
(1:41) and the name "Cephas" (1:42). The chamber of 
death became the chamber of life, for Jesus was in it, and joy 
took the place of grief in that home. 

5. Corban. — Once again Mark retains the Aramaic word 
"Corban" and explains it as meaning "Given to God" (7:11). 
Matthew (15:5) has only the translation. Peter was present 
on that occasion when Jesus so powerfully exposed the hol- 
lowness of the Pharisaic traditionalism which put the tradi- 
tion of the elders in the place of the Word of God and "Peter 
answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable" 
(Matt. 15:15). Mark thus retains Christ's striking word 
which Peter remembered. The explanation by Jesus was 
particularly pertinent, for Peter, in view of his later experience 
at Joppa and at Caesarea (Acts 10). Mark (7:19) adds^a sug- 
gestive anacoluthic clause: "Making all meats clean." Peter 
did not see it then, but he did afterwards. Mark may be here 
preserving Peter's own comment on the incident. The Jews 
had become so used to the Pharisaic trickery called " Corban" 
that the exposure and denunciation of it seemed a breach of 
courtesy to the disciples (Matt. 15:12). Custom so easily 
and so quickly blinds the eyes to moral and spiritual reality. 

6. Ephphatha. — Another Aramaic word in Mark (7:34) 
is " Ephphatha" and means "Be opened," as Mark explains 
in Greek. Here again the probability is that Mark is retain- 
ing Peter's verbatim report of the words of Jesus to the deaf 
and dumb man when he was healed. The notes of an eye- 
witness are present in Mark's report here. Jesus "took him 
aside from the multitude privately," as he often did, and, in 
particular, when he wished to avoid public commotion as 



ARAMAIC AND LATIN TERMS IN MARK S GOSPEL 1 25 

here in the borders of Decapolis. Mark gives the various 
details, how Jesus "put his fingers into his ears," as if to 
awaken the sense of hearing. Then "he spat, and touched his 
tongue," as if again to help the man by suggestion. Then 
"looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, "Eph- 
phatha, that is, Be opened." Evidently Peter told this in- 
cident with vividness. Mark sees the picture and makes us 
see it. The cure was instantaneous and Jesus charged the 
witnesses to tell no man, "but the more he charged them, so 
much the more a great deal they published it" (Mark 7:36), 
a bit of nature not unknown to-day. In Mark 9 15 we have the 
Aramaic "rabbi" (my honorable sir) without translation into 
Greek, where Matthew (17:4) has "Lord," and Luke (9-33) 
has "Master." In Matthew 23:8 "Rabbi" is translated by 
"Teacher" as "Rabboni" is in John 20:16. Mark has 
"Rabboni" in 10:51, text of Westcott and Hort, though in 
the margin we find "Lord, Rabbi." 

7. Bartimceus. — Mark alone preserves the redundant 
" Bartimaeus," "the son of Timaeus" (10:46). Here, again, 
Peter's quick ear and love of detail caught and held the name 
of this blind beggar "sitting by the wayside" as Mark pic- 
tures him. Mark 11:9, like Matthew (21:9), retains the 
Aramaic "Hosannah" of the exultant throng as they marched 
into Jerusalem. 

8. Abba, Father. — Once more it is Mark (14:36) who 
gives us "Abba, Father," from the lips of Jesus as he "fell 
on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour 
might pass from him." Matthew has "O my Father" (26: 
39), and Luke (22:42) "Father." It is not certain that we 
have here transliteration and translation as in some other 
instances in Mark. It is quite possible that here Jesus him- 
self uttered both words, the Aramaic " Abba" and the Greek 
"Pater" somewhat like our "Papa, Father." In moments 
of great emotion the language of childhood comes back to 
us with tremendous meaning. Twice we find Paul using 
this very combination in referring to God. In both instances 



126 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

he gives us the language of childhood. Paul was bilingual, 
as was Jesus. In Galatians 4:7 it is God's Spirit (the Spirit 
of God's Son) teaching our hearts to cry, "Abba, Father," 
and to feel the joy of sonship. In Romans 8:16 it is the 
spirit of adoption that leads us to look up to God as Father 
and lovingly say, "Abba, Father." But, all the more, we 
see how Mark has given us the very words that burst from 
the heart of Jesus in his hour of great agony in the Garden 
of Gethsemane. 

9. Eloi, Eloi. — In Mark 15:34 we have "the Aramaic 
word from the Cross," in contrast with the Hebrew form in 
Matthew 27:46. In both instances the translation is given. 
Jesus almost certainly cried out after the three hours of 
dreadful darkness and unbearable silence in the Aramaic. 
The Hebrew "Eli" sounds more like "Elijah," as some 
misunderstood Jesus, than the Aramaic "Eloi." But it was 
a misapprehension in either case. One can almost hear that 
cry of protest against the burden of the world's sin on his 
soul as the Father for the moment veiled his face. Jesus had 
always till now been able to find comfort and understanding 
in the Father who now seemed to have "left" him, even 
"reproached" (some manuscripts have it) him. No wail of 
woe was ever so bitter as this. Jesus was drinking his cup 
to the very bottom. 

We can no longer insist that Mark's "by companies" 

((TV[JL7r6(Tia crvfJL7r6(Tia 6:39) and "in ranks" {irpacnxLt irpacnai, 
garden-beds, garden-beds, 6:40) is Aramaic repetition, for the 
papyri show like duplication of words. 

10. Latin Words. — Some scholars argue that Mark wrote 
his Gospel first in Latin, because he was in Rome and be- 
cause he has some Latin words in the book. A few of the 
late manuscripts of the Gospel also affirm in the subscrip- 
tions that Mark wrote in Latin. He probably knew Latin 
as did Paul, but it is highly improbable that he wrote in 
Latin. Greek was the language in current use over the 
empire and in Rome itself outside of the official documents. 



ARAMAIC AND LATIN TERMS IN MARKS GOSPEL 127 

Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek. Paul 
wrote to the church in Rome in Greek. There are a few 
more Latin words in Mark than in the other Gospels, but 
this is certainly only natural if he was in Rome. They are 
all political, military, or monetary words, just the ones that 
would permeate the current Greek. So we find denarius 
(Mark 6:37), centurion (15:39, 44), quadrans (12:42), pallet 
or camp-bed (2:4, 9, 11), legion (5:9, 15), sextarius or wooden 
pitcher for measuring liquids (7:4, 8), spy or scout, specu- 
lator (6:27). 

Mark wrote in the vernacular Greek of the period, the 
koine, but was undoubtedly at home in the Aramaic x (his 
native tongue), and probably had an acquaintance with the 
official Latin. 2 He was a practical linguist, not a technical 
expert. He has given us the language of the life of the times 
and some actual transliterations of the Aramaic words of 
Jesus our Lord. 

1 See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of His- 
torical Research, pp. 102-5, 118/. 

2 Ibid., pp. 108-111. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARK'S GOSPEL * 

"And they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid." Mark 16:8 

i. Interpolations in the New Testament.— -Textual criticism 
is considered a dry subject by most people, whether it be 
concerned with the text of Homer, Shakespeare, or Mark, 
but it is a necessary science. There are many who recall the 
sensation created when the Revised Version was printed 
without John 5:4 (the angel stirring the water), Acts 8:37 
(the demand for the eunuch's confession), and 1 John 5:7-8 
(the famous passage about the Trinity). And yet no one 
to-day dares claim the genuineness of these passages, which 
are found in the Textus Receptus. The addition in 1 John 
5:7-8 " never was a part of the Greek New Testament and 
should be omitted from it as if Erasmus had never been 
brought to print it. It should be left out without word or 
sign that any false word ever had been there." 2 It seems 
reasonably certain also that John 7:53-8:11 (the story of 
the woman taken in adultery) is not a part of the Gospel of 
John. The evidence against it is overwhelming, and yet it 
is almost certainly a true incident. The verdict of Gregory 
may be accepted again: "I do not doubt that this story is 
a true story and that it has exercised its charm in oral and 
then in written tradition since the day on which the woman 
stood before Jesus." 3 We must remember that the gospels 
do not undertake to tell all that Jesus did and said. There 

1 The Homiletic Review (New York), June, 1918. 

2 Gregory, The Canon and Text of the New Testament , 1907, p. 517. 

3 Ibid., 513. 

128 



THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARKS GOSPEL 1 29 

are numerous interpolations in various manuscripts of the 
New Testament, some of them very interesting. It is not 
to be wondered at that during the long centuries some 
scribes made marginal notes that crept into the text. D. L. 
Moody marked his Bible from end to end. It is one of the 
treasures to see at Northfield. The great number of Greek 
manuscripts of the New Testament, some of them very 
early, make it possible to eliminate most of the additions 
with great ease. 

2. The Difficulty About Mark 16:9-20. — This is the chief 
textual problem in the Gospel of Mark and, one may add, 
in the New Testament itself. The length of it makes the 
loss of it serious and it seems to leave the Gospel a torso. 
A long and furious battle has raged round this problem, the 
smoke of which may be said to have finally cleared away. 
Great scholars championed its genuineness, such men as 
Bengel, Eichhorn, Scholz, De Wette, Olshausen, Bleek, 
Lange, Ebrard, Scrivener, Canon Cook, Salmon, E. Miller, 
Belser, and in particular Dean Burgon, who thought that 
his book, The Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark, settled the 
problem. "He assailed those who were for removing these 
verses from the text, and, as he believed, smote his antago- 
nists hip and thigh with a great slaughter." * But critical 
scholars have found it very hard to get away from the calm 
and judicial survey of all the facts by Hort in his " Notes on 
Select Readings' 5 (pp. 28-51), Introduction and Appendix 
to the New Testament in the Original Greek, in which he sums 
up against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, but holds that 
it is a very early addition. Gregory is positive that textual 
criticism has shown that this passage has "no right to a 
place in the text of the New Testament." 2 Maclean 3 
thinks "that neither the supporters nor the impugners of 
the present ending have quite done justice to the strength 

1 J. Rendel Harris, Sidelights an New Testament Research, p. 86. 

2 Op. cit., p. 511. 

3 Mark's Gospel, Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 



130 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

of the arguments on the other side." John A. Broadus held 
that the problem had not been solved, but that at least the 
passage was too doubtful to use in exposition as authorita- 
tive. Maclean, however, adds: "The difficulties on neither 
side can be neglected. But our verdict must be given after 
weighing probabilities, and to the present writer they seem 
overwhelmingly to preponderate against the Marcan author- 
ship of the last twelve verses, or even against there being a 
real ending of the gospel at all." Let us, then, see precisely 
what the situation is. There is a positive romance about 
the close of Mark's Gospel. 

3. The Short Ending. — Did Mark's Gospel end at 16:8? 
If so, it ended thus: "And they went out, and fled from the 
tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: 
and they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid." 
Surely this is an astonishing conclusion for a Gospel that 
tells the story of the Risen Christ. "It is inconceivable," 
Maclean argues, "that 16:8, with its abrupt and inauspicious 
ephobounto gar (e<£o/3owro yap), could possibly be the end of a 
gospel; indeed, it seems to stop in the middle of a sentence." 
J. Rendel Harris is sure that two more words were written by 
Mark anyhow: "I am not going to speculate on these matters 
further than to tell you the first two words that will be found 
on the missing leaf, if it should ever be recovered. The 
narrative went on like this: (For they were afraid) of the 
Jews." However, Prof. J. H. Farmer 1 thinks that "it is 
just possible that the Gospel did end at verse 8. The very 
abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived 
in the atmosphere of the resurrection and would form an 
even appropriate closing for the ( Gospel of the Servant/ 
A Servant comes, fulfils his task, and departs — we do not 
ask about his lineage nor follow his subsequent history." 
The fact that we cannot hold to either of the longer endings 
for Mark, Plummer holds to be conclusively shown: "That 
neither of these endings is part of the original Gospel is one 
1 "Mark's Gospel," International Bible Standard Encyclopedia. 



THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARKS GOSPEL 131 

of those sure results of modern criticism which ought no 
longer to need to be proved. 7 '' * The evidence for the short 
ending is strong. The two oldest and best Greek manu- 
scripts of the Xew Testament, Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and 
B (Codex Yaticanus), stop with verse 8. B has blank space, 
which shows that the scribe knew of the longer ending but 
concluded not to give it. The Sinaitic Syriac stops also at 
this point as does the margin of the Harclean Syriac. The 
best manuscripts of the Armenian and some of the older 
Ethiopic manuscripts likewise end with verse 8. Eusebius 
says that "almost all the Greek copies'' are without further 
ending. Victor of Antioch, who wrote the earliest known 
commentary on Mark, stops his comment with verse 8. 
Some of the Greek manuscripts (cursives) that give the 
longer ending say that it is not found in other manuscripts. 
The cursive Greek manuscript 22 marks "End" after verse 
8, according to "some of the copies," but adds that "in 
many" the regular ending is found. Similar comments 
appear in 1, 20, and nearly thirty other cursives. L gives 
two other endings and so really favors neither, though ap- 
parently not satisfied to stop at verse 8. Thus a very strong 
case is made out for having no ending other than 16 :S. And 
yet one cannot help wondering if something has not hap- 
pened, if Mark really meant to end his Gospel here. 

4. The Intermediate Ending. — Four Greek uncial manu- 
scripts (L, I 12 , p, •), the Greek cursive 274 (margin), the 
old Latin k, the manuscripts of the Memphitic, and several, 
of the Ethiopic manuscripts give the following for Mark's 
Gospel after 16:8: "And they reported briefly to Peter and 
those in his company all the things commanded. And after 
these things Jesus himself also sent forth through them 
from the East even to the West the holy and incorruptible 
message of eternal salvation." The four uncials belong to 
the eighth and ninth centuries and L is the only one of value. 

1 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Gospel According to St. 
Mark, p. xxxix. 



132 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

"L virtually closes the Gospel with verse 8, and gives this 
shorter ending as current in some places, and then the longer 
ending as also current." x L thus gives three ways of ending 
Mark. The other manuscripts also give the ending above 
as an alternative to the long ending (the Textus Receptus). 
The Old Latin k has this intermediate ending alone. But 
"no one maintains its genuineness; it is clearly written as 
an end to the Gospel and is not an independent fragment." 2 
Swete 3 thinks that the archetype of L, ^ 12 , P ended at verse 8 
with "for they were afraid" and that "the scribes have 
added on their own responsibility two endings with which 
they had met in other MSS., preferring apparently the 
shorter one, since it is in each case placed first." Hort 4 
thinks that this little paragraph bears some resemblance to 
Luke's prologue to his Gospel (1 11-4). The date was clearly 
early, but "it was overshadowed almost from the first by the 
superior merits of the longer ending." 5 However, since no 
one now holds it to be genuine, we need not tarry longer 
over it. 

5. An Expansion of the Long Ending. — The Washington 
manuscript of the Gospel (W) has "after Mark 16:14 a 
remarkable apocryphal addition, hitherto only partially 
known from a reference in Jerome." 6 So Kenyon 7 describes 
the rather startling expansion in this manuscript (Freer 
Gospels or W) which has given a new turn to the discussion 
concerning the close of Mark's Gospel. America has reason 
to be proud of the possession of this valuable document, due 
to the generosity of Mr. C. L. Freer, of Detroit. Professor 
H. A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan, has issued a 
Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels 

1 Gould, International Critical Commentary, Mark, p. 302. 

2 Maclean, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 

3 Mark, p. xcix. 

4 Introduction, pp. 298/. 

5 Swete, op. cit., p. cii. 

6 Contra Pelag., ii, 15. 

7 Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 115. 



THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 133 

(1912) with an Introduction. He places the date of the 
document as in the fourth or fifth century, probably the 
fourth, and thus ranking in age with Aleph and B. Pro- 
fessor E. J. Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago, has 
made a collation of The Freer Gospels (19 14) with the text 
of Westcott and Hort. 

"'Two lacunae now occur (John 14:25-16:7; Mark 15: 
13-38), caused by the dropping out of two leaves. 'The 
remainder of the MS. is so perfect that there is rarely a 
letter missing or indistinct.' That it was much reverenced 
in the early centuries is proved by the blots on it when in an- 
cient time the tallow dropped from candles while it was being 
shown to visitors, or the early saints were studying it." * 

Cobern rightly terms this a "spectacular reading": 

"And they defended themselves, saying: This world of 
lawlessness and of unbelief is under Satan, which does not 
suffer those unclean things that are under the dominion of 
spirits to comprehend the true powers of God. On this 
account reveal thy righteousness now. They said (these 
things) to Christ. And Christ replied to them: There has 
been fulfilled the term of years of the authority of Satan, 
but other dreadful things are drawing nigh (even to those) 
for the sake of whom as sinners I was delivered up to death 
in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorrupt- 
ible glory of righteousness which is in heaven." 

No one maintains that this rather florid passage belongs 
to the original Mark nor even to the original form of the 
long ending of the Textus Receptus. Kenyon seems justified 
in aligning it w T ith the "apocryphal" additions. It does not 
stand in the same category as John 7:53-8:11, which is 
almost certainly a true incident. Cobern 2 is probably cor- 
rect in calling it "a marginal note which came from very 
early times and crept into the text." In the Washington 

1 Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing Upon 
the New Testament, 191 7, pp. 163/. 

2 Op. cit.j p. 164. 



134 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

manuscript the order of the Gospels is Matthew, John, 
Luke, Mark. Gregory l thought it important enough for 
a monograph. 

6. The Long Ending. — This is the current text for Mark 
16:9-20 as we have it in our editions of the New Testa- 
ment. 

"The longer ending, as we have it in our Bibles, requires 
a longer discussion, because the strength of the case against 
the genuineness of the familiar words is still very imper- 
fectly known, and because the other side has been fiercely 
defended by Burgon, and is still upheld as correct by Scriv- 
ener-Miller, Belser, and some others." 2 "When we examine 
the external evidence, the question seems at once to be 
decided in favor of the disputed twelve verses." 3 

With the exception of Aleph, and B, which have no ending, 
and L, "I 12 , p, *, which have both endings, "the longer ending 
follows verse 8, without a break, in every known Greek 
MS." (Plummer) outside of the cursives mentioned above. 
It appears in most of the Old Latin manuscripts, in the 
Curetonian Syriac, in the Memphitic and in the Gothic 
versions. Irenseus quotes verse 19 as part of the Gospel of 
Mark, and thereafter it is frequently referred to by Christian 
writers. I do not, however, agree with Plummer that "this 
external testimony to the genuineness of the twelve verses 
seems to be not only conclusive, but superabundant." Man- 
uscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. Plum- 
mer rejects the passage in spite of that strong statement. 
Any passage in the Gospels that is not supported by Aleph 
and B, L, Sinai tic Syriac, k of the Old Latin manuscripts 
is far from having it all one way. Besides, the existence of 
two of these added endings (really three, counting the logion 
in the Washington Manuscript) discredits each of them. 

1 Das Freer-Logion, 1908. 

2 Plummer, Commentary on St. Mark in Cambridge Bible for Schools 
and Colleges, p. xl. 

3 Ibid n p. xli. 



THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARKS GOSPEL 135 

When the external evidence is classified by Westcott and 
Hort, dropping out the Syrian class of late documents and 
admitting mixture between the Alexandrian and the West- 
ern classes, we have at bottom a conflict between the Neutral 
and the Western classes, with the presumption in favor of 
the Neutral class (Aleph, B, L). "On appealing to internal 
evidence of classes the apparent conjunction of Western and 
Alexandrian witnesses is discredited, and we must decide 
that the genealogical evidence is in favor of omission." l 
When we turn to internal evidence the case against the 
passage is very much strengthened, "proving conclusively 
that these verses could not have been written by Mark." 2 
Verses 8 and 9 do not really fit together. This closing para- 
graph has a number of non-Marcan words (ob-toTe'co, idofxai, 
fxcTa Tavra, TTopcvofAai, &c). These are Johannine, but 
not Marcan. The style is less vivid and more didactic. 
"The historian has given place to the theologian, the in- 
terpreter of St. Peter to the scholar of St. John." 3 There is 
every evidence, therefore, that we have here an independent 
composition, a sort of early epitome of the appearance of 
Jesus, after the order of the documents used by Luke to 
which he refers in his Gospel, 1:1-4. 

So far, critics had come with surprising unanimity when 
"in November, 1S91, Mr. F. C. Conybeare found in the 
Patriarchal Library of Edschmiatzin an Armenian MS. of 
the Gospels, written a. d. 986, in which the last twelve 
verses of St. Mark are introduced by a rubric written in the 
first hand, c Of the Presbyter Ariston. 7 " 4 Who is this "Pres- 
byter Ariston" who is here said to be the author of the long 
ending of Mark's Gospel? "So here at last was the missing 
evidence for the authority of the last twelve verses, and a 
discovery for critical confirmation which should be the end 

1 Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 201. 

2 Gould, Commentary, p. 302. 

3 Swete, Commentary, p. ciii. 

4 Ibid., p. ciii. 



136 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

of all strife." * Professor Bacon had suggested that the 
Armenian scribe had been reading the " History" of Moses 
of Chorene and understood him to affirm that Hadrian made 
Aristo of Pella the secretary of Mark when he made him 
bishop of Jerusalem, and never attributes the appendix to 
Mark's secretary. Harris replies about this ingenious theory: 
"Everybody misunderstands everything" (p. 96), and dis- 
misses the conjecture. The usual interpretation to-day is 
that the Armenian scribe had in mind the Aristion whom 
Papias mentioned in connection with the Presbyter John 
(probably the Apostle John). If so, then this Appendix 
comes from a disciple of the Apostle John and the Johannine 
style is explained. Harris says: "There does not seem to 
be much room for hesitation," and Plummer agrees (p. xliv). 
Gregory is positive that now we know the author of this 
addition to be the Aristion of Papias. "A few years ago no 
one could answer that question. Now we can answer it." 2 
Gould objects to the character of some of the items in Mark 
16:9-20: "But the taking up serpents and drinking of deadly 
things without harm belong strictly to the category of 
thaumaturgy ruled out by Jesus." 3 Swete draws this con- 
clusion: 

"When we add to these defects in the external evidence 
the internal characteristics which distinguish these verses 
from the rest of the Gospel, it is impossible to resist the 
conclusion that they belong to another work, whether that 
of Aristion or of some unknown writer of the first century." 4 

Rendel Harris calls this "excess of caution." Mark had 
more than one manner, we may admit. Salmon 5 pleads 
that "we must ascribe the authorship to one who lived in 
the very first age of the Church. And why not to St. Mark? " 

1 J. Rendel Harris, Side-lights on New-Testament Research, p. 92. 

2 Canon and Text of the New Testament, p. 511. 

3 Commentary, p. 303. 

4 Ibid., p. cv. 

5 Introduction to the New Testament, p. .151. 



THE DISPUTED CLOSE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 137 

To be sure, if Mark made several editions of his Gospel, as 
Holdsworth argues, 1 he may have added this ending to the 
last one. But even so, there would still be the difference in 
style to explain. The notion that the Petrine material gave 
out at 16:8 assumes that Peter wrote out his recollections, 
which is not what tradition says about it. 

7. A Lost Ending. — So far, we have considered the possi- 
bility that Mark's Gospel stopped at 16:8 without further 
ending. But Rendel Harris wUl have none of that. 

"We are aware now that the Gospel is shorn of its last 
twelve verses and ends abruptly with the words 'And they 
were afraid' — which is not a literary ending nor a Christian 
ending and can hardly be a Greek ending: so that we are 
obliged to assume that the real ending of Mark is gone, and 
speculate as we please as to what has become of it and what 
it was like." 2 

I do not myself feel quite so sure as Dr. Harris that the 
Gospel did not end with 16:8. It may not be literary and it 
is rather free Greek (vernacular Koine such as Mark used), 
but it is certainly Christian, for it establishes the fact of 
Christ's resurrection with the restoration of Peter to favor. 
The fear of the women does make a rather depressing close, 
but we do not know what Mark's motives were, if he closed 
here. It is possible, of course, that Mark meant to write 
more and never did, being interrupted by a journey or even 
by death. "This supposition is against the ecclesiastical 
testimony which makes Mark finish his Gospel and, in some 
cases, makes him take it to Egypt." 3 It is possible that the 
last leaf of the autograph was lost before there were any 
copies made of it. In the papyrus-roll the outside leaf would 
be the first to be torn off. It is common enough with us for 
the last leaf of paper-bound books to be lost. "Why Mark's 
Gospel has come down to us incomplete, we do not know. 

1 Gospel Origins, p. 115. 

2 Sidelights on New-Testament Research, p. 87. 

3 Maclean, in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 



138 STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL 

Was Mark interrupted at this point by arrest or martyrdom 
before he finished his book? Was a page lost off the auto- 
graph itself? Or do all of our witnesses carry us back only 
to a mutilated copy short of the autograph, the common 
original of all of them, so that our oldest transmitted text is 
sadly different from the original text?" 1 Shall we stop 
with this critical impasse? Plummer argues that, as no one 
defends the intermediate ending as genuine, "we may hope 
that the time is near when it will be equally true of the 
longer and much more familiar ending." 2 We must, in that 
case, treat the longer ending as instructive, but not a part 
of Mark's Gospel. "A Christian may read, enjoy, ponder 
them, and be thankful for them as much as he pleases." 3 
"No one thing in reference to the Gospel of Mark could 
afford the textual critic greater pleasure than the finding of 
the words with which Mark continued the text after yap and 
finished his Gospel." 4 

Will it ever happen? Who can tell? Stranger things 
have already taken place in modern research. If Mark did 
write more for his Gospel and if copies were made of the 
autograph before it perished and before that leaf or leaves 
disappeared, then some day we may see the true ending of 
Mark's Gospel. "I regard it nevertheless as one of the 
possibilities of future finds that we receive this Gospel with 
its own authentic finish." 5 Dr. Gregory has been killed in 
battle in France and he did not live to see the discovery for 
which he longed and looked. With his dying wish we close 
this chapter: "Mark has been connected with Alexandria. 
May Grenfell and Hunt add to their numerous gifts the close 
of the original Mark from an Egyptian papyrus!" 

1 Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 204. 

2 Commentary , p. xxxix. 

3 Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, p. 513. 
*Ibid. 

5 Gregory, op. cit., p. 512. 



INDEX OF AUTHORS, BOOKS, TOPICS 



Abba, 125 

Adverse opinions, 71 

Allen, 1, 12, 13, 14,30,32 

Aleph, 131, 134, 135 

Alexandria, 138 

Alexandrian Class of Mss., 135 

Amanuensis, Mark as Peter's, 37 

Antioch, 3, 5, 6, 13 

Apocalypse of Jesus, 118 

Apocalypse, Little, 16, 40, 118 

Apocryphal Gospels, 41, 42 

Apostle John on Mark, 23, 29, 39 

Aramaic Mark, 13, 32, 33 

Aramaic and Latin Terms in 

Mark, 122-127 
Aramaic, Mark translating 

Peter's, 7, 44 
Aramaic Matthew, 9, 12, 29, 32 
Argyll, Duke of, 53 
Aristion of Papias, 136 
Aristo of Pella, 136 
Ariston, 135, 136 
Armenian Ms., 135 
Arnold, Matthew, 50 
Augustine, 22 
Authority, Note of, 83 

B (Codex Vaticanus), 131, 134 

Babylon, 7, 23 

Back to Christ, 63 

Bacon, 15, 19, 21, S3y 62, 64, 108, 

109, no, 136 
Ballard, 55 
Baptist, John the, and Jesus, 66, 

68,80 
Barnabas, 3, 4, 6, 7 
Bartimaeus, 125 
Bartlet, 9, 32 



Bauer, Bruno, 35 

Beginnings of the Gospel Story, 15, 

19, 21, 64, 108, no 
Belser, 129 
Bengel, 129 
Bennett, 65 
Bible for Home and School on 

Matthew, 32 
Biblical World, 47, 108 
Blass, 13, 32 
Bleek, 129 
Boanerges, 123 
Bond, 79, 93 
Books which Influenced Our Lord, 

92 
Bousset, 48 
Broadus, 30, 130 
Bruce, 52, 54, 98, in 
Bugge, 104 
Burgon, 129 
Burkitt, 16, 21 
Burton, 30, 34 

Caesarea, 10, 14, 26 

Cambridge Bible for Schools, 109, 
131, 134, 136 

Cambridge Biblical Essays, 16 

Canon and Text of the New Testa- 
ment, 128, 136 

Carpenter, 47 

Cataline, 27 

Chapman, Dom, 23, 36 

Children Understood by Christ, 89 

Children fond of Mark's Gospel, 18 

Christ of Liberal Theology, 48 

Christ Myth, The, 19 

Christ of Mark's Gospel, 34, 62-78. 

Christ of Q, 34 



139 



140 



INDEX 



Christian Advocate (New York), 92 
Christian Origins, 35, 47, 48, 62, 

64, 66, 109, no 
Christian Workers 1 Magazine, 90 
Christ's Conception of his Death, 

74-76 
Christ's Death, 116, 120 
Christ's Method and Manner in 

Preaching, 93 
Cicero, 27 

Civilization at the Cross-Roads, 49 
Clement of Alexandria, 15, 23, 38 
Cobern, 133 

Codex Sinaiticus, 131, 134, 135 
Codex Vaticanus, 131, 134, 135 
Commentary on St. Mark's Gospel, 

13, 21, 22, 30, 78, 109 
Composition and Date of Acts, 32 
Composition of the Four Gospels, 34 
Confessing Messiahship, 116 
Connection of Mark with Peter, 23 
Cons. Evang., de, 22 
Constructive Quarterly, 19, 62, 65 
Convention Teacher, 55 
Conversational Style, 93 
Conybeare, F. C, 19, 135 
Cook, 129 
Corban, 124 
Counterfeit Miracles, 50 
Courage unto Death, 90-92 
Cross, Ethics and the, 118 
Cross, Victor on the, 76-78 
Current Problems, 95 
Cyprus, 7 

Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gos- 
pels, 10, 11, 13 
Date of Luke's Gospel, 10 
Date of Mark's Gospel, 9-18, 24, 

37 
Date of Q, n, 12 
Death of Christ, 74-76, 116, 120 
Definition of Parables, 97 
Deity of Christ in Mark, 64, 65, 

69, 7°, 79> n° 



De Wette, 1 29 

Dictionary of Christ and the Gos- 
pels, 33> 5*> 102, 129, 132, 137 

Dictionary of the Bible, 50, 67, 109 

Difficulty about Mark, 9:16-20, 
129 

Disciples Puzzled, 72-74 

Disputed Close of Mark's Gospel, 
128-138 

Dobschiitz, 117 

Doctrine of the Person of Jesus 
Christ, 66 

Dragoman, 38 

Drews, 19 

Earliest Gospel, 14 

Earliest Picture of Christ, 65 

Early Date Most Probable, 17 

Early Testimony, 36 

Ebrard, 129 

Editing of Redactors, 14 

Edschmiatzin, 135 

Effect of Two-Document Hypoth- 
esis, 9 

Egypt, 7, 14 

Eichhorn, 129 

Einleitung in die drei ersten 
Evangelien, 31 

Elliott, S3 

Eloi, 126 

Emotions of Jesus, 94 

Encyclopcedia Biblica, 33, 48, 52 

Entstehung des Marcus-evangel- 
turns, 14 

Epiphanius, 15, 23 

Epphatha, 124 

Eschatological Jesus, 1 7 

Eschatology of Jesus, 117 

Eschatology of the Gospels, 117 

Ethics and the Cross, 118 

Exemplar for Preachers, 79-96 

Expansion of Long Ending, 132 

Expositor (Cleveland), 79, 97 

Expositor (London), 9, 12, 32, 78 

Eusebius, 15, 22, 23, 36, 38 



INDEX 



141 



Evolution and Miracle, 50, 51 
Eyewitness, Notes of, 24, 42-46 

Fairbain, 65 

Farmer, 130 

Figgis, 49 

Finding Difficulty in Teaching 

his Students, 87 
Fishing for Fishers of Men, 82 
Foretelling Death, 116 
Forsyth, 65 

Fourth Gospel and Mark, 37 
Fourth Gospel in Research and 

Debate, 21 
Freer, 132 
Freer Gospels, 133 
Freer-Logion, Das, 134 
Friends Misunderstanding Christ, 



Galilean Gospel, in 

Garvie, 50 

Germanic Jesus, 17, 63 

Gestures of Jesus, 94 

Glimpses of Mark, 1 

Goodspeed, 133 

Good Start of Mark, 3 

Gordon, G. A., 55 

Gospel According to St. Luke in 
Greek, 26 

Gospel History and Its Trans- 
mission, 16 

Gospel Miracles, 55 

Gospel of God, Preaching, 82 

Gospel Origins, 14, 22, 137 

Gospels as Historical Documents, 
17, 109 

Gould, 29, 66, 67, 109, no, in, 

132, 135 
Greek, Current, 7, 32, 33, 137 
Greek Mark, 13 
Greek Matthew, 12 
Gregory, 128, 129, 134, 136, 138 
Grenfell and Hunt, 28, 138 
Groups of Parabks, 98-102 



Hadrian, 35, 136 

Haeckel, 50 

Haggadah, 84 

Halachah, 84 

Harnack, 10, n, 13, 15, 20, 53 

Harris, J. Rendel, 129, 130, 137 

Hastings, 33, 50, 51, 67, 102, 109, 

129 
Hauptparabeln Jesu, 104 
Healing Ministry, 84 
Hellenism, 21, 28 
Herodians, 119 
Hibbert Journal, 20, 28, 50, 63 

Hindered by Popularity, 85 
Historical Christ, The, 19 
Historical Jesus and the Theological 

Christ, 47 
Historical Worth of Mark and Q, 

34 

History of Early Christian Lit- 
erature, 17, 35, 36 

Hitchcock, 95 

Hobart, 11 

Holdsworth, 14, 22, 137 

Holtzmann, 29 

Homiletic Review, 128 

Homiletics of Jesus, 79 

Horce Synopticce, 15, 16, 30, 43 

Hort, 129, 132 

Human Element in the Gospels, 1 2 

Hume, 54 

Humor Jesu, Der, 95 

Huxley, 50, 59 

Illingworth, 55 

Illustrations of Jesus, 95 

Imago Christi, 79 

Importance of Peter's Influence 

on Mark's Gospel, 35 
Intermediate Ending of Mark's 

Gospel, 131 
International Critical Commentary 

on Mark, 30, 67, 109, no, in, 

*3S 



142 



INDEX 



International Critical Commentary 

on Matthew, 30, 32. 
International Standard Bible En- 

cyclopcedia, 130 
Interpolations in the New Tes- 
tament, 128 
Interpreter, Mark as, 38, 122 
Introduction to the Books of the New 

Testament , 12, 13 
Introduction to the Four Gospels, 26 
Introduction to the Literature of 

the New Testament, 11, 15, 109 
Introduction to the New Testament, 

9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 36, 136 
Introduction to the Greek New 

Testament, 132 
Irenaeus, 15, 22, 23, 38 
Irony of Jesus, 94 
Itinerant Preacher, 92 

Jackson, 16, 117 

Jerome, 15, 23, 3S, 132 

Jerusalem, 3, 14, 24 

Jesus and the Future Life, 118 

Jesus Himself the Chief Miracle, 

48-51 
Jesus or Christ Controversy, 20, 63 
Jesus Problem, The, 16 
Johannine Christ, 47, 63 
John the Baptist, 66, 68; disciples 

of, 99 
John the Loyal, 80 
John or Mark, 23, 29, 37 
John, Presbyter, 2, 22, 23, 36 
John the Presbyter and the Fourth 

Gospel, 23, 36 
Jones, M., 12, 16, 48 
Judaizers, 5, 6 
Justin Martyr, 37 

Kenyon, 132, 133 
Key to Miracle, 54 
Kinds of Miracles, 52-53 
Koine, 137 



L, 131, 132, 134, 135 

Lange, 129 

Latin Terms in Mark, 126-127 

Latin Mark, 33 

Law, 94 

Liberal Jesus, 63 

Life and Matter, 50 

Life of Christ in Recent Research, 

I3C 7 
Life of Christ According to St. 

Mark, 6$ 
Literary Evolution of the Gospels, 1 2 
Little Apocalypse, 16, 40, 118 
Limitations in Mark's Gospel, 66 
Lodge, 50 
Logia (Q), 25, 28 
Logia of Jesus, 28, 111 
Lost Ending of Mark's Gospel, 137 
Luke the Physician, 1 1 
Luke and Mark, 13, 29 
Luke's Gospel, Date of, 10; 

sources of, 10, 25, 26, 32 

Mackintosh, 65, 66 

Maclean, 33, 67, 129, 130, 132, 137 

MaharTy, 28 

Making a Point of the Teaching, 
1 1 2-1 15 

Making of John Mark, 1-8 

Making Good with Simon Peter, 7 

Making Mistakes, 2 

Mark a Comfort to Paul, 7 

Mark, Coolness toward Paul, 6 

Mark as Minister, 4 

Mark, Influence of Peter on, 3^ 

Mark, Possible Editions of, 13, 33 

Mark used by Matthew and Luke, 
27 

Mark and Q, 31, 33 

Mark Responsible for our Pic- 
ture of Christ, 62-64 

Mark's Failure in a Crisis, 4 

Mark's Good Start, 2 

Mark's Gospel, Sources of, 24, 
25, S3 



IXDEX 



143 



Mark's Gospel and the Synoptic 

Problem, 19-34 
Mark's Habit as Interpreter. 122 
Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q, 

3i, 33 

Mark's Mother Man", 3, 24 

Mark's Purpose in his Gospel, 65 

Mark's Second Chance with Bar- 
nabas, 6 

Mark's Use of his Material, 40-42 

Mark's Use of Matthew, ^,3 

Marshall, 13, $2 

Master Preacher, The, 79, 93 

Matthew, Aramaic, 9, 12, 29, 32 

Matthew, Canonical, ^2 , 33 

Matthew, Greek, 12 

Matthew and the Logia, 28, 31 

Medical Language of St. Luke, n 

Menzies, 14 

Messiahship, Confessing, 16 

Messianic Consciousness, 66 

Method of Mark, no 

Methodist Review, 35 

Mightier than the Baptist, So 

Miller, 129 

Ministry of Sympathy, 90 

Miracles and Christianity, 50 

Miracle and Fact, 53 

Miracles in the Xew Testament, 55 

Miracles of Unbelief, 55 

Miracles, Kinds of, 52 

Miracles, Expressions of Christ's 
Energy, 49 

Miraculous Element in Mark's 
Gospel, 47-61 

Miraculous Still in Mark, 47-48 

Misunderstood by his Friends, 88 

Modem vs. Traditional View of 
Mark, 21 

Motfatt, n, 15, 66, 109 

Moody's Bible at Northfield, 129 

More than a Collection of Dis- 
courses, 39, 40 

Moulton, W. J., 102 

Mozley, 54 



Muirhead, 117 
Mystery-religion, 21 

Xarrow Limits as to Date, 16 
Necessity of Knowing Mark, 19 
Xeutral Class of Manuscripts, 135 
New Archeological Discoveries and 

their Bearing upon the I 

Testament, 133 
New Testament in the Twentieth 

Century, 13, 16, 48 
New Sayings of Jesus, 28 
Nietzsche, 17 
Xolloth, 1, 12, 28, 2>2 
Xon-miraculous Gospel, 55 
Xote of Reality, 6^-6^- 
Notes of an Eye-witness, 24 
X'otes of Mark, 46 
Notes on Parables, 97, 98 
Number of Miracles, 51-52 

Objectivity of Mark, 108 

Oesterley, 117 

Old Latin K, 132, 134 

Olshausen, 129 

Oral Theory of the Synoptic 

Gospels, 26 
Origen, 15, 2^, 37 
Origin of Mark's Gospel, 22 
Original Extent of Q, 31 
Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 

Problem, 9, 11, 12, 14, 26, 27, 

29 ? 3°, 3i, 32 
Oxyrhynchus Logia, 17 

Papias, 1, 13, 22, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 

33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 4i, 136 
Parables of Jesus, 97-107; less 

pro m inent than miracles, 97; 

definition of, 97; groups, 98; 

pointedness of, 105; summary, 

107 
Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 98 
Party Pamphlets, Gospels, 27 
Patton, 34 



H4 



INDEX 



Paul and Mark, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, no 
Paul and Mark's Gospel, 8, 24 
Paul, Mark a Comfort to, 7 
Paul's Indignation at Mark's 

Conduct, 5 
Paulinism of Mark, 21, 64 
Pauline Christ, 47, 63, no 
Perga, Mark's Failure at, 4, 5, 6 
Person and Place of Jesus Christy 

65 

Person and Principles of Jesus in 
Mark's Gospel, 67 

Peter and Mark, 2, 7 

Peter, Mark making Good with, 7. 
See Author's "Making Good in 
the Ministry: A Sketch of John 
Mark." 

Peter's Eyes, 42-46 

Peter's Influence on Mark's Gos- 
pel, 35-46 

Peter's Memoirs, 37, 39 

Peter's Interpretation of Christ, 46 

Peter's Sermon at Caesarea, 24, 41 

Pfleiderer, 35, 47, 48, 49, 62, 63, 
64, 66, 109, no 

Pharisees, 84, 99, 103, 113, 114, 
117, 119 

Philology of the Gospels, 32 

Picture of Christ from Peter and 
John, 42 

Picture of Christ in Q, 63 

Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 

65 
Plummer, 130, 134, 136, 138 
Popularity, Hindered by, 85 
Possible Editions of Mark's Gos- 
pel, 13 
Poteat, 56 

Practical Ethics and the Cross, 118 
Preacher and His Models, The, 79 
Preacher's Picture of Christ, 65, 79 
Preacher, Jesus the, 79 
Preacher, Test of, 89 
Preachers, Tempted like Other, 81 
Preacher, Itinerant, 92 



Preaching the Gospel of God, 82 
Preaching, Christ's Method and 

Manner, 93 
Pre-Christian Jesus, 19 
Presbyter Ariston, 135 
Presbyter John, 2, 22, 23, 36 
Principles of Literary Criticism, 34 
Probabilities as to the So-called 
Double Tradition of St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, 31 
Progress of Hellenism in Alex- 
ander's Empire, 28 
Proper Names ? 122 
Psychology of Jesus, 95 

Q (Quelle, source), 9, 11, 12, 25, 

28, 32, 34 
Q and Mark, 31, 32 
Q, Christ of, 63 
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1 7, 20, 

63, 117 
Questioning by Jesus, 94 

Rabbinism, Pharisaic, 21, 84, 97 

Ramsay, 4, 10, 17 

Redactors, 14, 15, 33, 62 

Reign of Law, 53 

Religion and Miracle, 55 

Renaissance of Wonder, 55-61 

Renan, 19 

Repartee, 94 

Review of Theology and Philosophy, 

14 
Revolutionary Discourse, 115 
Riddle of the Universe, 50 
Rise of the Christian Religion, 12, 

28,32 
Robertson, A. T., 32, 80, 127 
Robertson, J. M., 16 
Rome, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 33 
Ross, G. A. Johnston, 92 

Sacrificial Aspects of Christ's 
Death, 120 



INDEX 



145 



Sadducees, 117 

Salmon, 12, 33, 129, 136 

Salmond, 109 

Sanday, 9, 26, 27, 29, 30, 54, 55, 
117 

Sanders, 132 

Sanhedrin, 119 

Sayings of Jesus, 20, 28 

Schmiedel, 20, 25, 33 , 48 

Schweitzer, 17, 20, 36, 63, 117 

Science and Christian Tradition, 
50 

Scrivener, 129 

Seeking Rest and Finding Work, 
86 

Shorthand, 27 

Short Ending of Mark's Gospel, 
130 

Sidelights on New Testament Re- 
search, 129, 136, 137 

Simon Peter, see Peter 

Sinaitic Syriac, 131, 134 

Socrates, 37 

Soden, von, 17, 35, 36 

Son of God, 69, 70, 79 

Son of Man, 69, 70, 79 

Sources of Luke's Gospel, 10, 25, 
26, 32 

Sources of Mark's Information, 24, 

25,33 

Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, 34 

Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, In- 
ternational, 130 

Stanton, 17, 109 

Stevens, 30 

St. Paul the Traveller and the 
Roman Citizen, 10 

Stalker, 79 

Strauss, 19 

Streeter, 11, 12, 31 

Studia Biblica, 30 

Style of Mark, 24 

Swete, 13, 14, 21, 22, 30, 32, 33, 
65, 66, 78, 109, 132, 135, 136 

Sympathy, Ministry of, 90 



Synoptic Problem, 9, 10, n, 12, 
16, 19-34 

Synoptiker Handcommentar, 29 

Talitha Cum(i), 123 
Talmud, 89, 93, 97 
Teaching of Jesus in Mark's Gos- 
pel, 108-12 1 
Teaching with Note of Authority, 

83 

Tempted like other Preachers, 81 

Tertius, 37 

Tertullian, 23, 38 

Test of a Great Preacher, 89 

Textual Criticism of the New Tes- 
tament, 132, 135, 138 

Theistic Evolution, 50 

Theology of the Gospels, 66 

Theophllus, 29 

Thompson, 55 

Thomson, 92 

Thucydides, 28, 41 

Torrey, C. C., 32 

Trench, 97, 98 

Two-Document Hypothesis, 9, 
30, 31 

Understanding Children, 89 
Universality of Jesus, 92 
Ur-marcus Theory, 15, 16, 20, 33, 

62 
Ur-markus, 14 

Vernacular Koine, 137 
Victor of Antioch, 21, 131 
Victor on the Cross, 76-78 
Vivid Details in Mark, 43, 64 

Warfield, 50, 135, 138 

Washington Manuscript, 132, 134 

Weinel, 48 

Wellhausen, 10, n, 13, 31, 32 

Wendland, 50 

Westcott, 26, 109, 134 

Western Class of Manuscripts, 135 



146 



INDEX 



Whateley, 78 

Williams, 14 

Winstanley, 118 

Wit of Jesus, 94, 104 

Wonder Worker, Jesus the, 18, 55 

Woods, 30 

Worsley, 118 



Wright, A., 26, 33 
Wright, T. H, 51, 52 
Wunkhaus, 95 

Xenophon, 37 

Zahn, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 29, $6, 37 



Printed in the United States of America 



*T*HE following pages contain advertisements of a 
few of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects. 



The Course of Christian History 

By W. J. McGLOTHLIN, Ph.D., D.D. 

Professor of Church History in the Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary. 

Cloth, $2.00 

This volume has been written with a full and accurate knowl- 
edge of the subject gained from study in European Universities 
and teaching in one of the leading theological institutions of this 
country. 

While it is thoroughly scientific in spirit and is abreast of the 
latest developments, the author has at the same time preserved 
that lucidity and simplicity of statement and style which make 
the book interesting and readable for the general student. 

" The study of the course that has been taken by the Church 
in its extended life is most interesting and fascinating, when 
guided by one who is able to speak as a real master. . . . The 
growth and development of the church from its early days, on 
through the middle centuries and into modern times, is por- 
trayed in a skillful and authoritative way, and much light is 
shed on the great controversies and councils, in the develop- 
ment of doctrines, the spread of heresies and the expansion of 
the life and work of the church." — Herald and Presbyter. 

" The volume is different from the general run of church his- 
tories. ... It is readable, interesting and informing. The book 
is intended primarily for college students and is well adapted 
to this use. . . . The book is also well adapted to the use of 
Bible classes, mission study classes, etc., and could be used by 
them to great profit. . . . Dr. McGlothlin has done a splendid 
piece of work in this volume and made a real contribution to 
the literature on the history of Christianity. We wish for this 
book a wide reading/" — Review and Expositor. 



Psychology and Preaching 

By CHARLES S. GARDNER 

Cloth, i2mo. Price $2.00 

" Psychology and Preaching" is a thorough study of the 
more important mental processes involved in preaching, 
from the standpoint of functional psychology. 

After a discussion of the general mental processes — in- 
tellectual, emotional and voluntary— as they function in 
preaching, it takes up first the psychic phenomena of the 
mass as they appear in assembly and community groups; 
second, three important occupational types, the minister, 
the laboring man and the business man; third, the "modern 
mind" or the peculiar mental attitudes of modern men as 
contrasted with the characteristic attitudes of more primi- 
tive men. The book should be especially helpful to minis- 
ters, as well as of service to all who are interested in present 
day religious problems. 

Public speakers generally should find it suggestive. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 



RELIGIOUS HAND BOOKS 

Each Sixty Cents 

DEMOCRATIC CHRISTIANITY: SOME PROBLEMS 
OF THE CHURCH IN THE DAYS JUST AHEAD 

By FRANCIS J. McCONNELL 
" We have in mind the tasks of to-day as they confront the Christian 
Church," writes Bishop McConnell. 

GOD'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR 

By EDWARD S. DROWN 
Dr. Drown discusses this very interesting question in terse and vigorous 
prose. 

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY CRUSADE 

By LYMAN ABBOTT 
Written by one who has an exultant faith that never in the history of the 
past has there been so splendid a demonstration of the extent and power of 
the Christ spirit as to-day. 

THE WAY TO LIFE by henry churchill king 

A discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, similar to that in Dr. King's 
former book The Ethics of Jesus. Besides rewriting them, he has added 
material on the war and the teachings of Jesus. 

IT'S ALL IN THE DAY'S WORK 

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING 

" Good bracing council ... a book for all who wish to acquit themselves 
well in the battle of life."— The Dial 

THE BEST MAN I KNOW By WILLIAM DeWITT HYDE 

"All the virtues and the graces that make for fine quality of life are 
included. They are presented with a vigor that is like the sting of salt 
winds, bracing and wholesome." — Christian Register. 

THE CHURCH AND THE MAN By DONALD hankey 

" Filled with the wise sincerity of a religious conviction that cares little 
for creed and miracle, that finds the whole vade me cum of life in the simple 
facts of Christ's active work among men." — Boston Transcript. 

THE CHRISTIAN MAN, THE CHURCH AND THE WAR 

By ROBERT E. SPEER 
Dr. Speer here discusses the essentials of a problem which has exercised 
Christian men since the beginning of the war. He deals with it sanely and 
in a manner that will be considered distinctly helpful. 

NEW HORIZON OF STATE AND CHURCH 

By W. H. P. FAUNCE 

" Broad, profound scholarship, close relationship with progressive senti- 
ment all over the land, and unusual powers of keen analysis and graphic 
statement are forceful elements in The New Horizon of State and Church. 
— ■ Philadelphia North American. 

THE WAR AND THE BIBLE By h. d. enelow 

Contents: — The Spiritual Problems of the War; The Attitude of the 
Bible Toward War; The Ethics of War in the Bible; Some Great Wars of 
the Bible; Heroes of War in the Bible; The War Poetry of the Bible; War 
Prayers in the Bible; Parallels to the Present War in the Bible; The Ideal 
of Peace in the Bible. 



" The Best Bible Commentary for the General Bible Student" 

The Bible for Home and School 

Edited by SHAILER MATHEWS, D.D., Dean of the Divinity School in the Uni- 
versity of Chicago 
OLD TESTAMENT 
GENESIS By H. G. MITCHELL. i6mo, $ .go 

"Earlier volumes of this series have been commended by us. Genesis is even more 
comprehensive." — Cumberland Presbyterian. 

THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY By W. G. JORDAN. i6mo,$ .75 

"A clear and accurate commentary on one of the most important books of the Old 
Testament." — Western Theological Seminary Bulletin. 

THE BOOK OF JUDGES By EDWARD LEWIS CURTIS. i6mo, $ .75 
"Precisely the kind of commentary needed by private students of the Old Testament 
and teachers of Bible classes." — Congregationalist. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH 

By JOHN EDGAR McFADYEN. i6mo, $ .go 

"In ISAIAH we have the results of a ripe scholarship, literary clearness and spiritual 

emphasis. The author is a Biblical critic of the best kind." — Northern Christian Advocate. 

THE BOOK OF JOB By GEORGE A. BARTON i6mo, $ .go 

" With a touch too artistic to permit him to descend to homily the poet shows that his 

solution of life's problem is a religious one." — (Author.) 

THE BOOKS OF AMOS, HOSEA AND MICAH 

By JOHN M. POWIS SMITH. i2mo, $ .75 

"Biblical readers owe to Dr. Smith a very useful commentary on these interesting 
prophetic books." — Auburn Seminary Record. 

NEW TESTAMENT 

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 

By A. T. ROBERTSON. i6mo, $ .60 

"The best brief commentary on the first Gospel, scholarly and religious, sound of 
doctrine, reverent in spirit, and withal usable to the average man who will find it in- 
structive and stimulating." — Biblical Recorder. 

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 

By M. W. JACOBUS. i6mo, $ .75 

"The volumes of this series make admirable text books, just the right line of informa- 
tion is given for the average student and Bible reader, and it is given in the most usable 
fashion." — Christian Endeavor World. 

ACTS By GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT. i6mo, $ .75 

"His volume on ACTS is a multum in parvo, brief, sensible and to the point." 

— Lutheran Quarterly. 

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS 

By B. W. BACON. i6mo, $ .so 

"No commentary gives a better exposition in so brief a compass." 

— Reformed Church Review. 

THE EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO THE EPHE- 

SIANS By GROSS ALEXANDER. i6mo, $ .50 

"Judging from the volumes that have appeared, the general editor of these commen- 
taries has been very successful in getting commentators who have the skill so to treat 
the books of the Bible that they come to the men of to-day with vital power." 

Boston Transcript. 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 

By EDGAR J. GOODSPEED. i6mo y $ .so 

"Free from elaborate discussions and arid controversy." — Eomiletic Review. 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 398 762 



'"'lilltlli 

j : III l|!i'H|||tl| ! 

HP' 

IB 

I I ill 



